Given people around me start to start families, I'm starting to see a key similarity between those that are saying they're voting "No" in the AV referendum because they want PR, and 2-3 year olds.
No doubt if you know of someone with a young child, or maybe if you've watched any of those "I need parenting help" TV programs, you'll have knowledge of the same mind-numbing lack of logic that is perhaps excusable in kids under the age of 5, but not so much for adults of voting age.
"Would you like some ice cream?"
"NO. I want chocolate cake"
"Well...we don't have chocolate cake, how about we get some chocolate cake another time?"
"I want it now"
"So you don't want ice cream?"
"NO"
"Fine..."
It's not a specific example I've seen, but in the vein of many of the examples you'll find out there. And it is, without pulling any punches, childish and narrow-minded.
With the referendum we are being offered an improvement over the current system on 5 levels.
1) Inclusiveness
In 2010 25% of people voted in such a way that their votes meant less to the over-all result. They are everyone that voted for a 3rd or worse placed candidate in their constituency. By voting that way they made a choice that made so little difference that they might as well have stayed home. It wouldn't have changed the winner, it wouldn't have changed the majority the winner had. Yet if they *had* voted tacitically (essentially making an AV result, without the rounds of AV) their vote would have made a difference, either increasing or decreasing the winner's majority to a more accurate show of like/dislike on policy areas, or could have changed the winner completely.
AV stops this unequal practice of people's votes being worth less than others (unless the voter chooses to make it so), by removing the last placed candidate and simulating another FPTP election as if that candidate hadn't stood, etc, etc until a winner is found.
2) Transparency
Along with the above comes transparency. We're ultimately diverse beings with diverse opinions. I personally appreciate Labour's approach to funding of public services, but I dislike their authoritarian streak. A Labour government tempered with a liberal edge would be my perfect party or coalition of government. But I can currently only vote for Labour or vote for Lib Dem. If I make the wrong choice, along with many other people in the constituency splitting their "left wing liberal" vote, then a Tory could win despite the opinions of people not fitting that bill.
AV enables us to say what we really feel, it's not tactical it's just honest. And furthermore it gives us and the parties much more information about the type of policies the constituency really wants, and better informs governance as a result.
3) Honesty
And this transparency can only be achieved because AV enables a much greater level of honesty. Sure, there are situations where tactical voting can exist, though it is much less rational or possible under AV than it is under FPTP. The vast majority of seats will see people simply being able to state their true preferences, to say who they really want.
Currently people might be forced (or feel forced) to vote negatively under FPTP, not through an honest wish for that candidate to win, but to stop someone else. AV ensures that your first vote need NEVER be a tactical one, and always an honest choice on who you want to represent you.
4) Representativeness
And as such AV is clearly more representative. By running elections in such a way that we ask the question "What if the election under FPTP had been run only with the most popular candidates?" As such we whittle the list down, keeping the most popular candidates in, and eventually selecting the most popular of them.
Now representativeness can be measured in other ways, you can also claim there may be a more representative result available than under AV, but the fact remains that the result under AV will be a more knowingly representative one than under FPTP...even if the same candidate wins that would have under FPTP, we know exactly how much more they're supported by people than first appeared, or how much less.
5) Choice
All of the above are available as improvements because the choice for voters is moved to being an active and free participant to whatever level they wish. If they want to still put a single "X" down under AV, they can. If they want to preference everyone, they can. FPTP drains this up front choice from voters, making them decide between honesty and tactics, only informing them of how "equal" their participation is after the result, not guaranteeing it from the beginning to whatever level they wish it to be the case.
These above are not opinions, the are logical facts. If you wish to ignore them then that's your choice, but you are acting the same as that immature and illogical child. The only difference is you don't have the excuse to not know better.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
The problem with FPTP
It's all well and good focusing on all the good things AV has to offer, representative local politics, constituency link, more equality of people's voices...but this is also about why we should move from the current system.
FPTP has three main flaws that AV does not share (we all accept AV has flaws, though in general it's flaws are less severe versions than under FPTP.
1) FPTP discourages diversity/encourages unknown results
FPTP works great when only two people are standing. Add more voices in and it gets a whole lot harder to work out as fair. The more candidates that stand under FPTP with some kind of support, the more chaotic the election gets. As votes split further and further the actual number of votes needed to win the seat plummet. It's dangerous in one direction, those that gamble and get the support can easily end up getting elected on only a quarter of the vote if there are enough candidates with support standing.
But also, it means that if you are concerned as a candidate about splitting the vote you may not want to stand. Look at what happened in Oldham and East Saddleworth. Now granted the Tories ran a candidate to placate the local party, but they wished actually to not run at all to give the Lib Dems a better chance. They KNEW that under FPTP fielding a candidate would actually hamper the chances of beating their enemy.
When you have a system that says a winner can be crowned because of how low the threshold is taken, or because two parties are too similar and will gift a common enemy of the two a win, then it is time to move to a system that doesn't make such fatal democratic mistakes.
2) FPTP means unequal votes
Around 25% of the electorate in 2010 voted for a candidate that came 3rd or lower. They might as well have stayed home, it would have made no difference to the final 1st and 2nd place results. However, if they hadn't have "stayed home" and instead voted for the 2nd or 1st place candidate then suddenly their voice would have been more influential.
Under FPTP if you vote for a candidate that placed lower than 2nd then your voice was less instrumental in the result than those that voted 1st or 2nd. If, under AV, we whittle out all the unpopular candidates and end up with a final two, the only equal way to deal with people's opinion is to give them all an opportunity to decide which of those already popular final two are their favourite...equal voices and equal votes.
When your voting system is saying that if you are knowingly voting for someone that is not likely going to be in the top two that you better change your vote, or stay at home, something is wrong.
3) FPTP favours large unified minorities over more "picky" majorities.
Similar to point 1 above, FPTP has the effect of meaning constituencies with a strong but minority voice are more likely to win than those voices that generally agree with each other but find different vehicles of representation. Whether it is Labour and the Left Wing of Lib Dems, or Tories and the Right wing of Lib Dems, or Tories and UKIP, etc...if these local splits happen then the winner is not the popular choice, it's not representative of local views. FPTP allows strong minorities to steal elections, something completely obliterated by the introduction of the AV system.
FPTP has three main flaws that AV does not share (we all accept AV has flaws, though in general it's flaws are less severe versions than under FPTP.
1) FPTP discourages diversity/encourages unknown results
FPTP works great when only two people are standing. Add more voices in and it gets a whole lot harder to work out as fair. The more candidates that stand under FPTP with some kind of support, the more chaotic the election gets. As votes split further and further the actual number of votes needed to win the seat plummet. It's dangerous in one direction, those that gamble and get the support can easily end up getting elected on only a quarter of the vote if there are enough candidates with support standing.
But also, it means that if you are concerned as a candidate about splitting the vote you may not want to stand. Look at what happened in Oldham and East Saddleworth. Now granted the Tories ran a candidate to placate the local party, but they wished actually to not run at all to give the Lib Dems a better chance. They KNEW that under FPTP fielding a candidate would actually hamper the chances of beating their enemy.
When you have a system that says a winner can be crowned because of how low the threshold is taken, or because two parties are too similar and will gift a common enemy of the two a win, then it is time to move to a system that doesn't make such fatal democratic mistakes.
2) FPTP means unequal votes
Around 25% of the electorate in 2010 voted for a candidate that came 3rd or lower. They might as well have stayed home, it would have made no difference to the final 1st and 2nd place results. However, if they hadn't have "stayed home" and instead voted for the 2nd or 1st place candidate then suddenly their voice would have been more influential.
Under FPTP if you vote for a candidate that placed lower than 2nd then your voice was less instrumental in the result than those that voted 1st or 2nd. If, under AV, we whittle out all the unpopular candidates and end up with a final two, the only equal way to deal with people's opinion is to give them all an opportunity to decide which of those already popular final two are their favourite...equal voices and equal votes.
When your voting system is saying that if you are knowingly voting for someone that is not likely going to be in the top two that you better change your vote, or stay at home, something is wrong.
3) FPTP favours large unified minorities over more "picky" majorities.
Similar to point 1 above, FPTP has the effect of meaning constituencies with a strong but minority voice are more likely to win than those voices that generally agree with each other but find different vehicles of representation. Whether it is Labour and the Left Wing of Lib Dems, or Tories and the Right wing of Lib Dems, or Tories and UKIP, etc...if these local splits happen then the winner is not the popular choice, it's not representative of local views. FPTP allows strong minorities to steal elections, something completely obliterated by the introduction of the AV system.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
What is FPTP?
FPTP is turning up at the butchers wanting steak, but being refused service because it's sold out.
FPTP is wanting to watch the Kings Speech at the cinema, but being turned away because the screening is full
FPTP is going for a curry, even though it means the majority of your group go home early
FPTP is not having a single thing you can use as a knife in the kitchen when you need to slice some things.
FPTP is not being able to find your Kings of Leon CD in the car, so having to sit in silence.
FPTP is wanting a Cobra when you get to the bar, but having to not drink anything because it is sold out.
FPTP is your long term life partner dying, but finding another love to keep you company.
FPTP is wanting to use the treadmills at the gym, but turning around and going home because you don't know when they'll become free
FPTP is your team being 1-0 down in the 90th, and your manager telling the team to give up because only a win is worth it.
FPTP is finding your favourite clubbing top hasn't been washed, not having a reasonable going out top otherwise, and so having to call your night out off
In basic terms, FPTP is having one choice, and if that choice isn't valid enough then you have to sit on the sidelines without your full opinion being heard. Isn't that pretty unfair?
FPTP is wanting to watch the Kings Speech at the cinema, but being turned away because the screening is full
FPTP is going for a curry, even though it means the majority of your group go home early
FPTP is not having a single thing you can use as a knife in the kitchen when you need to slice some things.
FPTP is not being able to find your Kings of Leon CD in the car, so having to sit in silence.
FPTP is wanting a Cobra when you get to the bar, but having to not drink anything because it is sold out.
FPTP is your long term life partner dying, but finding another love to keep you company.
FPTP is wanting to use the treadmills at the gym, but turning around and going home because you don't know when they'll become free
FPTP is your team being 1-0 down in the 90th, and your manager telling the team to give up because only a win is worth it.
FPTP is finding your favourite clubbing top hasn't been washed, not having a reasonable going out top otherwise, and so having to call your night out off
In basic terms, FPTP is having one choice, and if that choice isn't valid enough then you have to sit on the sidelines without your full opinion being heard. Isn't that pretty unfair?
Saturday, 19 February 2011
A fair result
Let's look forward to a potential election in 2015.
In your constituency the result is counted and it ends as thus..
Tories 51%
Labour 40%
Lib Dems 9%
Happy with this result? Over half have voted for the Tory candidate, and he's elected. Good stuff? Looking at it as a FPTP result, it's clear it's a fair win for the Tory MP.
If this is the case, then how does the presence of other rounds before it, should it also be the AV result, make any difference? What if the round before the final round above was...
Tories 45%
Labour 40%
Lib Dems 8%
UKIP 7%
And how about the round before this it looked like this?
Tories 39%
Labour 40%
Lib Dems 8%
UKIP 7%
Independent 6%
Are we honestly so fickle that we would accept the result at the top of the page if it were FPTP, where voters have decided to vote Tory in the absence of their own candidate, but won't accept the same result achieved through a different system?
EDIT: I'm just going to elaborate on my thinking, after a conversation with @SohoPolitico on twitter.
The reason I bring this example up is it's important to understand that preferences that people place explicitly under AV are the same preferences that they decide to use implicitly during FPTP.
Take the top result on this page between three candidates. If it were FPTP it would be accepted as a Tory win by everyone, perhaps as a clear mandate. The reality would be that the vote is made up by people that have used their own second and third preference choices as though it were a first preference because they don't want Labour to win.
The result that would take place under FPTP would not be transparent, we wouldn't know if the Tories had a real majority, or if the vote was more about not wanting Labour while *really* wanting someone else. But the one universal truth between both that result as FPTP, and AV, is the same voter in both scenario's feels strongly about voting for someone other than Labour and has every right to express that preference.
As soon as you understand that how people feel doesn't change between the two results, regardless of how the result is reached...you should also understand that comparing people's preference level to each other is irrelevant. We don't measure inter-personal preferencing under FPTP, it's implicit, but just because it's out in the open doesn't mean it's relevant to "who is more popular" either. Preferences only exist to allow the system to work.
If the system was Run-Off, where there is a re-vote between rounds, we wouldn't use preferences...we wouldn't need to. The system is functionally identical except for this fact...preferences therefore only exist to allow vote counters to carry out each round without reapplying for people's opinion.
So with preferences being irrelevant to the validity of the "popularity" of the result, it just comes down to that result. If you accept the top result on this page is a victory for the Tories then you also accept that by adding more people in to the mix the Tory hasn't got less popular in a head to head with Labour.
The only thing that has changed as you go down the "rounds" is that people are splitting their vote...that the Left leaning people in the constituency are all huddled around Labour while an increase in right wing candidates spoils the vote for the Tories.
This is why AV is a fairer system, we can see where the vote is being split, we can rectify it by ensuring that we understand who the most popular person is in a final head-to-head (or head-to-heads), with an accurate level of information as to the specific type of policies that the winner should be taking in to consideration if they are to be truly representative of their constituency.
AV... more representative of overall views
AV... more transparent for telling the core priorities of electorate
AV... Disallows the logistical act of vote splitting to enable an unpopular candidate to win.
This is why it is a no brainer to vote to change to AV this May.
In your constituency the result is counted and it ends as thus..
Tories 51%
Labour 40%
Lib Dems 9%
Happy with this result? Over half have voted for the Tory candidate, and he's elected. Good stuff? Looking at it as a FPTP result, it's clear it's a fair win for the Tory MP.
If this is the case, then how does the presence of other rounds before it, should it also be the AV result, make any difference? What if the round before the final round above was...
Tories 45%
Labour 40%
Lib Dems 8%
UKIP 7%
And how about the round before this it looked like this?
Tories 39%
Labour 40%
Lib Dems 8%
UKIP 7%
Independent 6%
Are we honestly so fickle that we would accept the result at the top of the page if it were FPTP, where voters have decided to vote Tory in the absence of their own candidate, but won't accept the same result achieved through a different system?
EDIT: I'm just going to elaborate on my thinking, after a conversation with @SohoPolitico on twitter.
The reason I bring this example up is it's important to understand that preferences that people place explicitly under AV are the same preferences that they decide to use implicitly during FPTP.
Take the top result on this page between three candidates. If it were FPTP it would be accepted as a Tory win by everyone, perhaps as a clear mandate. The reality would be that the vote is made up by people that have used their own second and third preference choices as though it were a first preference because they don't want Labour to win.
The result that would take place under FPTP would not be transparent, we wouldn't know if the Tories had a real majority, or if the vote was more about not wanting Labour while *really* wanting someone else. But the one universal truth between both that result as FPTP, and AV, is the same voter in both scenario's feels strongly about voting for someone other than Labour and has every right to express that preference.
As soon as you understand that how people feel doesn't change between the two results, regardless of how the result is reached...you should also understand that comparing people's preference level to each other is irrelevant. We don't measure inter-personal preferencing under FPTP, it's implicit, but just because it's out in the open doesn't mean it's relevant to "who is more popular" either. Preferences only exist to allow the system to work.
If the system was Run-Off, where there is a re-vote between rounds, we wouldn't use preferences...we wouldn't need to. The system is functionally identical except for this fact...preferences therefore only exist to allow vote counters to carry out each round without reapplying for people's opinion.
So with preferences being irrelevant to the validity of the "popularity" of the result, it just comes down to that result. If you accept the top result on this page is a victory for the Tories then you also accept that by adding more people in to the mix the Tory hasn't got less popular in a head to head with Labour.
The only thing that has changed as you go down the "rounds" is that people are splitting their vote...that the Left leaning people in the constituency are all huddled around Labour while an increase in right wing candidates spoils the vote for the Tories.
This is why AV is a fairer system, we can see where the vote is being split, we can rectify it by ensuring that we understand who the most popular person is in a final head-to-head (or head-to-heads), with an accurate level of information as to the specific type of policies that the winner should be taking in to consideration if they are to be truly representative of their constituency.
AV... more representative of overall views
AV... more transparent for telling the core priorities of electorate
AV... Disallows the logistical act of vote splitting to enable an unpopular candidate to win.
This is why it is a no brainer to vote to change to AV this May.
What is AV?
AV is turning up at the butchers wanting steak, finding it's sold out but still being able to buy chicken instead.
AV is wanting to watch the Kings Speech at the cinema, but still being able to see Black Swan when the screening is sold out.
AV is wanting to go for a curry, but happily getting a chinese instead because your housemates don't like spicy food.
Av is at least having spoons when what you need is a knife.
AV is not being able to find your Kings of Leon CD in the car, but having Mumford and Sons ready to play
AV is wanting a Cobra when you get to the bar, but buying a Corona when the Cobra is sold out.
Av is your long term life partner dying, but finding another love to keep you company.
Av is wanting to use the treadmills at the gym, but using the rowing machine as all the treadmills are in use.
AV is your team being 1-0 down in the 90th, and being happy when they score an equaliser just before the whistle.
Av is finding your favourite clubbing top hasn't been washed, but having a back-up for just such an occurrence.
In basic terms, AV is still being allowed to have a choice out of the remaining options available, and for your valid opinion to be heard. Isn't that a nice thing to be able to have?
AV is wanting to watch the Kings Speech at the cinema, but still being able to see Black Swan when the screening is sold out.
AV is wanting to go for a curry, but happily getting a chinese instead because your housemates don't like spicy food.
Av is at least having spoons when what you need is a knife.
AV is not being able to find your Kings of Leon CD in the car, but having Mumford and Sons ready to play
AV is wanting a Cobra when you get to the bar, but buying a Corona when the Cobra is sold out.
Av is your long term life partner dying, but finding another love to keep you company.
Av is wanting to use the treadmills at the gym, but using the rowing machine as all the treadmills are in use.
AV is your team being 1-0 down in the 90th, and being happy when they score an equaliser just before the whistle.
Av is finding your favourite clubbing top hasn't been washed, but having a back-up for just such an occurrence.
In basic terms, AV is still being allowed to have a choice out of the remaining options available, and for your valid opinion to be heard. Isn't that a nice thing to be able to have?
AV Game theory
One of the less provable aspects of this debate between AV or FPTP is this:
Which result will better enable people to call for further reform?
To me it's a redundant question, but let's look at some realities we do know.
1) The No campaign is mainly organised by Tories and Labour peeps that actually don't want to move away from FPTP. There are those involved that are honestly of the belief that a system that means something like 25% of the electorate could stay at home without affecting the 1-2 placings of every constituency, is better than one that gives everyone a more equal voice. There are also a certain amount of those who believe that accepting a small change will put a barrier up against bigger change.
2) The Yes campaign is mainly made up of Lib Dems and Labour peeps that see there is a democratic deficit in this country that needs resolving somehow (though, I think it's fair to say both sides tend to disagree on just how that should be solved)
3) Referendums kill other referendums. In the 70s we had a referendum on the EU (which was won as a Yes vote). Labour recently faced calls for a repeat of this referendum under different times. In the 70s a major push was made by the Tories to go in to the EU for economic reasons, in the 00s the popular rhetoric was one that we had "had enough". As such Labour basically said there would be no referendum because it hadn't been long enough since the last one. Political posturing based on knowing the result most likely wouldn't have gone their way. (I support being in the EU, for those who care).
So what does this all mean? First, if you vote no please don't pretend that you're not giving a victory to those that want to ultimately keep FPTP. If you vote yes, don't pretend that there aren't No's that don't want reform..or that you're voting for further reform. You're voting for AV, that is all.
Also, the fact this referendum is here means that another referendum will not come about without a party political wish for there to be one, regardless of the result.
But then how the whole "further referendum in the future" thing goes is anyone's guess. If the public truly make a stink about reform...protests, mass petition/engagement with politicians...then maybe it'll happen sooner as whichever party in power thinks they can gain popularity off of it. This will happen regardless of whether we vote yes or no, the power is in our hands at any time to collectively try and force this.
The only other situation is that someone like the Lib Dems does actually get the main stay of power (at least the reverse of the current coalition), with party policy that they pursue STV and as such are mandated by their members to put a referendum on the table as a party of government. Of course, I think we all understand how unlikely this is!
So given this, how should we vote? Obviously it depends how you feel, AV or FPTP being better (despite it being demonstrably evident that AV is an improved and fairer system than FPTP), but Game theory for me says this...
1) The referendum is Yes, and we get further reform referendum after = PR people have what they want
2) The referendum is Yes, and we don't get another referendum any time soon = No proportional reform, but a better system than we had for the time being
3) The referendum is No, and we get a further reform referendum after = PR people have what they want...though the fall back if they lose again is still FPTP
4 The referendum is No, and we don't get another referendum any time soon = No proportional reform, and stuck with the same unrepresentative system.
Total it up, it's clear that you're more likely to get a positive result, not only now but if everything goes wrong in a future referendum, if you vote for AV now. A future referendum is not dependant on how this referendum goes, but how much we want it regardless of the result...the question now is what do we want the default position to be should that reform not come, or should that future reform fail to get supported by the public?
Which result will better enable people to call for further reform?
To me it's a redundant question, but let's look at some realities we do know.
1) The No campaign is mainly organised by Tories and Labour peeps that actually don't want to move away from FPTP. There are those involved that are honestly of the belief that a system that means something like 25% of the electorate could stay at home without affecting the 1-2 placings of every constituency, is better than one that gives everyone a more equal voice. There are also a certain amount of those who believe that accepting a small change will put a barrier up against bigger change.
2) The Yes campaign is mainly made up of Lib Dems and Labour peeps that see there is a democratic deficit in this country that needs resolving somehow (though, I think it's fair to say both sides tend to disagree on just how that should be solved)
3) Referendums kill other referendums. In the 70s we had a referendum on the EU (which was won as a Yes vote). Labour recently faced calls for a repeat of this referendum under different times. In the 70s a major push was made by the Tories to go in to the EU for economic reasons, in the 00s the popular rhetoric was one that we had "had enough". As such Labour basically said there would be no referendum because it hadn't been long enough since the last one. Political posturing based on knowing the result most likely wouldn't have gone their way. (I support being in the EU, for those who care).
So what does this all mean? First, if you vote no please don't pretend that you're not giving a victory to those that want to ultimately keep FPTP. If you vote yes, don't pretend that there aren't No's that don't want reform..or that you're voting for further reform. You're voting for AV, that is all.
Also, the fact this referendum is here means that another referendum will not come about without a party political wish for there to be one, regardless of the result.
But then how the whole "further referendum in the future" thing goes is anyone's guess. If the public truly make a stink about reform...protests, mass petition/engagement with politicians...then maybe it'll happen sooner as whichever party in power thinks they can gain popularity off of it. This will happen regardless of whether we vote yes or no, the power is in our hands at any time to collectively try and force this.
The only other situation is that someone like the Lib Dems does actually get the main stay of power (at least the reverse of the current coalition), with party policy that they pursue STV and as such are mandated by their members to put a referendum on the table as a party of government. Of course, I think we all understand how unlikely this is!
So given this, how should we vote? Obviously it depends how you feel, AV or FPTP being better (despite it being demonstrably evident that AV is an improved and fairer system than FPTP), but Game theory for me says this...
1) The referendum is Yes, and we get further reform referendum after = PR people have what they want
2) The referendum is Yes, and we don't get another referendum any time soon = No proportional reform, but a better system than we had for the time being
3) The referendum is No, and we get a further reform referendum after = PR people have what they want...though the fall back if they lose again is still FPTP
4 The referendum is No, and we don't get another referendum any time soon = No proportional reform, and stuck with the same unrepresentative system.
Total it up, it's clear that you're more likely to get a positive result, not only now but if everything goes wrong in a future referendum, if you vote for AV now. A future referendum is not dependant on how this referendum goes, but how much we want it regardless of the result...the question now is what do we want the default position to be should that reform not come, or should that future reform fail to get supported by the public?
50% or not 50%?
One of the most (pathetically) controversial points of the AV argument is this claim that 50% of the vote must be attained by the winning candidate. It is entirely a pedantic point, but let's look at it.
First, how does a "vote" count currently under FPTP? For your vote to be counted it must be cast, and valid. If you spoil your ballot, your vote is not counted.
Fast forward to AV. If everyone casts enough preferences that no-one "runs out" of preferences (that is that their vote is no longer transferred to another candidate) it's very clear that the winner will have over 50% of the vote. Even where preferences run out it is likely that votes will go over that 50% mark of all votes cast, preferences counted or not.
However there are situations whereby someone may well win on 50%, but not of all votes cast. Is it valid to still say they are elected on 50% of the vote?
As I said at the top, this is pathetically pedantic when coming from either side, but yes, it is still valid to claim that.
Just as under FPTP whereby if you do not vote for one of the candidates but you submit a ballot you are spoiling your ballot, if you end up running out of preferences you too are spoiling your ballot under AV. This is, of course, an active choice on your part. You are saying "I don't endorse any of these candidates, I'm not taking part in endorsing the eventual result".
As such, with these votes becoming spoiled...again, just like under FPTP...they don't get "counted" in the same sense. Recorded, of course, they were part of the process...but for the result they do not count, therefore the winner can still attain 50% of the vote..the valid vote..same as under FPTP.
In the interest of honesty, this should also mean that it's clear that there may be scenarios in AV whereby the total number of votes that someone wins on under AV does not change compared to if the vote was held under FPTP...the difference is that we know for sure under AV that the person truly held the greatest plurality, rather than just assuming it without taking in to account everyone's opinion.
So there you go, a particularly boring part of the whole discussion, highlighting how pedantic and silly it is to get in to arguments over it. "50% of the vote" is a valid phrase, at least it is if you don't go around questioning whether or not your MP currently *really* got their 30-40% of the vote under FPTP.
First, how does a "vote" count currently under FPTP? For your vote to be counted it must be cast, and valid. If you spoil your ballot, your vote is not counted.
Fast forward to AV. If everyone casts enough preferences that no-one "runs out" of preferences (that is that their vote is no longer transferred to another candidate) it's very clear that the winner will have over 50% of the vote. Even where preferences run out it is likely that votes will go over that 50% mark of all votes cast, preferences counted or not.
However there are situations whereby someone may well win on 50%, but not of all votes cast. Is it valid to still say they are elected on 50% of the vote?
As I said at the top, this is pathetically pedantic when coming from either side, but yes, it is still valid to claim that.
Just as under FPTP whereby if you do not vote for one of the candidates but you submit a ballot you are spoiling your ballot, if you end up running out of preferences you too are spoiling your ballot under AV. This is, of course, an active choice on your part. You are saying "I don't endorse any of these candidates, I'm not taking part in endorsing the eventual result".
As such, with these votes becoming spoiled...again, just like under FPTP...they don't get "counted" in the same sense. Recorded, of course, they were part of the process...but for the result they do not count, therefore the winner can still attain 50% of the vote..the valid vote..same as under FPTP.
In the interest of honesty, this should also mean that it's clear that there may be scenarios in AV whereby the total number of votes that someone wins on under AV does not change compared to if the vote was held under FPTP...the difference is that we know for sure under AV that the person truly held the greatest plurality, rather than just assuming it without taking in to account everyone's opinion.
So there you go, a particularly boring part of the whole discussion, highlighting how pedantic and silly it is to get in to arguments over it. "50% of the vote" is a valid phrase, at least it is if you don't go around questioning whether or not your MP currently *really* got their 30-40% of the vote under FPTP.
Friday, 18 February 2011
"on May 5th they want their second preference to come first."
"And, as so often happens in elections using the AV system… …on May 5th they want their second preference to come first."
Cameron's witty quip at the end of his press conference. But, does it really prove the lack of integrity of AV supporters, or why the system is a good one?
When we go to the ballot in May we only have two options, Yes or No to the question of "Should we change to AV?"
Now this is a FPTP election, we don't know anyone's preferences or reasons, we just have the options on the table. If AV wins it's because more people want AV than want our current FPTP system.
If this same type of situation happened in a constituency for the General Election, like happens every election, do we look back at those who are voting for Labour, Tories or Lib Dems and say that their vote doesn't count because we believe they'd rather support the Greens or BNP?
Of course not, because making crass assumptions about people's wishes is childish.
But what if AV really is our second preference? If the question was "Which system shall we use: FPTP, AV or STV?"
If that was held under an AV vote (for irony!) and it was clear that most Labour and Tory supporters didn't want STV, STV would be eliminated first as having only a small percentage of the votes. The question then returns to "AV or FPTP?", just like this referendum question we have now.
Second choice or not, if AV wins in May it's because it's preferred to FPTP, and thus more popular than FPTP is. That kind of result is the fairest of all. And it's that kind of fair result a "Yes" win in May will ensure up and down the country at the next General Election.
Cameron's witty quip at the end of his press conference. But, does it really prove the lack of integrity of AV supporters, or why the system is a good one?
When we go to the ballot in May we only have two options, Yes or No to the question of "Should we change to AV?"
Now this is a FPTP election, we don't know anyone's preferences or reasons, we just have the options on the table. If AV wins it's because more people want AV than want our current FPTP system.
If this same type of situation happened in a constituency for the General Election, like happens every election, do we look back at those who are voting for Labour, Tories or Lib Dems and say that their vote doesn't count because we believe they'd rather support the Greens or BNP?
Of course not, because making crass assumptions about people's wishes is childish.
But what if AV really is our second preference? If the question was "Which system shall we use: FPTP, AV or STV?"
If that was held under an AV vote (for irony!) and it was clear that most Labour and Tory supporters didn't want STV, STV would be eliminated first as having only a small percentage of the votes. The question then returns to "AV or FPTP?", just like this referendum question we have now.
Second choice or not, if AV wins in May it's because it's preferred to FPTP, and thus more popular than FPTP is. That kind of result is the fairest of all. And it's that kind of fair result a "Yes" win in May will ensure up and down the country at the next General Election.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Candidate lists
At the last election there was a constituency (hypothetical) that had the following candidates running, with the following number of votes...
Jeff - 18,000 votes
Billy - 17,000 votes
Ashley -4,000 votes
Jane - 800 votes
Kerry - 200 votes
Tom - 100 votes
Under FPTP Jeff wins. Fair? It must be, if you support FPTP.
Next election the same candidates run again. Every voter votes the same way...except Ashley has pulled out. Instead Ashley's voters decide how they'll vote in Ashley's absence. 2000 decide they won't bother voting at all, 1,600 decide they'll vote for Billy, and 400 decide they'll vote for Jeff.
New vote shares for the next election are...
Jeff - 18,400 votes
Billy - 18,600 votes
Jane - 800 votes
Kerry - 200 votes
Tom - 100 votes
Another FPTP election, but this time Billy wins. Fair? It must be if you support FPTP.
Yet this situation is exactly what AV deals with, except it does it within the same election. Before claiming that it's "unfair" that someone's 2nd or further preference counts as much as your 1st, think about the above scenario. Would you complain about your election being won by someone because another candidate wasn't present? Would you think that Billy's votes aren't as worthy as Jeffs?
Of course not, you'd not bat an eyelid at the situation, and you'd congratulate the winner. Yet this is what AV does to ensure that the most popular of the most popular win each seat.
Edit: Someone on twitter tried to claim that the above results are like "earning £10" whilst the AV method is like stealing £10. It should be clear to those that don't need to abandon logic to parrot a party line...what I've demonstrated above is the exact process AV takes, though over a period of years not hours. If you believe the above FPTP result is fair you lose any right to claim that AV is unfair. It is, possibly unfortunately for you, unavoidable. :) /Edit
For more on why AV is a fairer choice than FPTP, read on.
Jeff - 18,000 votes
Billy - 17,000 votes
Ashley -4,000 votes
Jane - 800 votes
Kerry - 200 votes
Tom - 100 votes
Under FPTP Jeff wins. Fair? It must be, if you support FPTP.
Next election the same candidates run again. Every voter votes the same way...except Ashley has pulled out. Instead Ashley's voters decide how they'll vote in Ashley's absence. 2000 decide they won't bother voting at all, 1,600 decide they'll vote for Billy, and 400 decide they'll vote for Jeff.
New vote shares for the next election are...
Jeff - 18,400 votes
Billy - 18,600 votes
Jane - 800 votes
Kerry - 200 votes
Tom - 100 votes
Another FPTP election, but this time Billy wins. Fair? It must be if you support FPTP.
Yet this situation is exactly what AV deals with, except it does it within the same election. Before claiming that it's "unfair" that someone's 2nd or further preference counts as much as your 1st, think about the above scenario. Would you complain about your election being won by someone because another candidate wasn't present? Would you think that Billy's votes aren't as worthy as Jeffs?
Of course not, you'd not bat an eyelid at the situation, and you'd congratulate the winner. Yet this is what AV does to ensure that the most popular of the most popular win each seat.
Edit: Someone on twitter tried to claim that the above results are like "earning £10" whilst the AV method is like stealing £10. It should be clear to those that don't need to abandon logic to parrot a party line...what I've demonstrated above is the exact process AV takes, though over a period of years not hours. If you believe the above FPTP result is fair you lose any right to claim that AV is unfair. It is, possibly unfortunately for you, unavoidable. :) /Edit
For more on why AV is a fairer choice than FPTP, read on.
CCHQ's misleading posters
Misleading. For a start what other countries do or don't do is irrelevant. We are our own country, we make our own decisions, and I think we're proud of that fact. We have a monarchy as head of state despite most other democracies having abandoned that, we drive on the Left despite most countries driving on the right. We don't really compromise on our traditions, unless those traditions have become truly outdated.
Also, FPTP is used in less than half the countries in the world (70 countries use it in at least half of their election for their representative body, out of 203), so don't mistake that big expanse of Green to mean FPTP is used everywhere.
No-one gets more votes counted than anyone else. You could say someone's vote is counted 5 times, but you'd equally have to say that everyone else still in the vote gets their vote counted 5 times too. More here.
This is a false analogy, utterly misrepresentative of reality. If you're going to use a running race to analogise AV, then do it the right way. AV is like having multiple races, where the slowest running fails to qualify. More on this analogy being rubbish
A misrepresentation of how AV really works. "Preferences" only relate to how you rank each candidate against each other, not how you rank them compared to how others rank theirs. At the end of the day if the vote comes down to a Tory versus Lib Dem, and your 5th choice is Lib Dem you are still stating that, when choosing between the Tory and Lib Dem, you want the Lib Dem. This is just as relevant a statement, and completely fair, as mine of prefering the Tory on first preference.
If a FPTP election took place and only a Lib Dem and Tory stood, and people chose to vote the same way as they would in a final round of AV those in the No2AV camp would claim this is entirely fair and equal...so why does that change all of a sudden under AV? Answer: It doesn't. Again, read more here, and about how AV is fairer than FPTP here.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
£250 mil? Get real!
Apparently the next tactic on the No2AV list is to try and scare people with numbers. £250mil it'll cost us if we vote YES in May! How will we ever survive as a nation?
Well, quite easily really. £250million is equivalent to about £4 per person, not a huge amount. And that's before we even look in to the figures.
£250 million equates to an £82mil figure to run a referendum (the same cost as running an election, apparently), and another £9mil to educate people on what the options are.
OK, so the referendum will actually cost about £91mil then, not £250mil. More like £1.50 per person to have a say on which voting system we prefer. EDIT: Even this, by the way, is an over-estimate. With a referendum on the same day as local election the costs of venue hire, administration, security, etc are all saved...potentially driving the direct cost down by 50% to nearer £40mil or £50mil.
Where does the other part of the bill come from? Well, first more education at every election sourced from unsourced "experts", of about £26mil. Of course this isn't a referendum cost, but a cost of each election after that...assuming that we spend the same money every year on educating voters on what they're actually voting for (shock horror), and then £130mil on expensive counting machines.
Expensive counting machines? Where is the proof for these devices? Australia has run this system with much greater voter numbers than we ever have to deal with by HAND for around 8 decades! Why are we so special that we need machines to do it for us...again, where is the proof? Despite asking loyal No supporters, and official No campaign bods, we as yet have no answer to this curious question.
So I'm sorry, but I cannot count this highly presumptive and fantastical £130mil cost that appears to have been inserted in there, though I'll work with the £26mil. That cost works out at 40p per person...over 5 years. less than 10p per person each year to ensure that everyone knows how to vote properly... less than 1p a month!
Gaaaawd, that breaks the bank doesn't it!
Well the way that No2AV would prefer you look at it is the cost in real terms. 5000 police officers that £250mil could pay for! Well, we know now that it's more like £117mil, so maybe more like 2500 police officers. This assumes a police officer is worth around £50k each, which in all fairness isn't going to be far off the mark for one year (including admin, pension, equipment, salary).
But the referendum is a one time thing, so after one year the money for those police officers would be gone again, so not so much "5000 extra police without AV referendum", more "2500 extra police for one year only without AV referendum", yet even that would be disingenuous given how £26mil of that cost is only coming around once every 5 years if we vote Yes. straight away this means we're talking only about 1820 officers for one year only, with the remaining funding spread over 5 years.
What the No campaign should really be saying is that the avoidable cost of us saying "Yes" may be around £26million (due to the fact this referendum is happening and costing us around £90mil whether you say Yes or No), every 5 years, at the devastating cost of being unable to fund 104 extra police officers.
It's a pretty redundant argument in today's economic times. Maybe if NO2AV care so much about what money is being spent on, they should instead fight the cuts of 20% or so that will cost us 10,000 police officers over the next 4 years, rather than spend their money on trying to keep an out-dated, unfit for purpose, system that freezes a significant proportion of the voting public out of having their opinions heard?
Note: all "per person" figures can be roughly related to "per taxpayer" figures by doubling them.
Well, quite easily really. £250million is equivalent to about £4 per person, not a huge amount. And that's before we even look in to the figures.
£250 million equates to an £82mil figure to run a referendum (the same cost as running an election, apparently), and another £9mil to educate people on what the options are.
OK, so the referendum will actually cost about £91mil then, not £250mil. More like £1.50 per person to have a say on which voting system we prefer. EDIT: Even this, by the way, is an over-estimate. With a referendum on the same day as local election the costs of venue hire, administration, security, etc are all saved...potentially driving the direct cost down by 50% to nearer £40mil or £50mil.
Where does the other part of the bill come from? Well, first more education at every election sourced from unsourced "experts", of about £26mil. Of course this isn't a referendum cost, but a cost of each election after that...assuming that we spend the same money every year on educating voters on what they're actually voting for (shock horror), and then £130mil on expensive counting machines.
Expensive counting machines? Where is the proof for these devices? Australia has run this system with much greater voter numbers than we ever have to deal with by HAND for around 8 decades! Why are we so special that we need machines to do it for us...again, where is the proof? Despite asking loyal No supporters, and official No campaign bods, we as yet have no answer to this curious question.
So I'm sorry, but I cannot count this highly presumptive and fantastical £130mil cost that appears to have been inserted in there, though I'll work with the £26mil. That cost works out at 40p per person...over 5 years. less than 10p per person each year to ensure that everyone knows how to vote properly... less than 1p a month!
Gaaaawd, that breaks the bank doesn't it!
Well the way that No2AV would prefer you look at it is the cost in real terms. 5000 police officers that £250mil could pay for! Well, we know now that it's more like £117mil, so maybe more like 2500 police officers. This assumes a police officer is worth around £50k each, which in all fairness isn't going to be far off the mark for one year (including admin, pension, equipment, salary).
But the referendum is a one time thing, so after one year the money for those police officers would be gone again, so not so much "5000 extra police without AV referendum", more "2500 extra police for one year only without AV referendum", yet even that would be disingenuous given how £26mil of that cost is only coming around once every 5 years if we vote Yes. straight away this means we're talking only about 1820 officers for one year only, with the remaining funding spread over 5 years.
What the No campaign should really be saying is that the avoidable cost of us saying "Yes" may be around £26million (due to the fact this referendum is happening and costing us around £90mil whether you say Yes or No), every 5 years, at the devastating cost of being unable to fund 104 extra police officers.
It's a pretty redundant argument in today's economic times. Maybe if NO2AV care so much about what money is being spent on, they should instead fight the cuts of 20% or so that will cost us 10,000 police officers over the next 4 years, rather than spend their money on trying to keep an out-dated, unfit for purpose, system that freezes a significant proportion of the voting public out of having their opinions heard?
Note: all "per person" figures can be roughly related to "per taxpayer" figures by doubling them.
Friday, 11 February 2011
Voting mathematics: 101
A vote. What is it? You can define it one of two ways. It is either the process of performing a vote, or it is the action of your choice being counted. I prefer the terminology in the first case (as do those that tend to describe voting systems... one man, one vote refers to only having to make one trip to the booth, not that they only put one "X" down in general), but it is irrelevant which you prefer in reality; the outcome for both is the same.
Under AV you carry out your vote, by putting as many preferences down as you want. Your vote is carried down the preference list you have stated as your candidates are eliminated. One vote, transferred as necessary.
Or perhaps you look at it like you put multiple votes down against multiple candidates, with only one vote counted per round regardless of which candidate is currently determined to have your support.
Take the following rows of "votes" for several candidates, A, B and C respectively:
|||||||||||||||||||| = 20
|||||||||||||||| = 16
||||||| = 7
You can see here, there's a total of 20 + 16 + 7 votes, or 43 votes.
The lowest candidate is eliminated, the votes stand as such...
|||||||||||||||||||||| = 22
||||||||||||||||||||| = 21
The total votes counted here is, again 43.
So who has had their vote counted more than once? If you follow the simple maths above, you'll see that no-one has had their vote counted more than once, or rather that everyone has had their vote counted more than once. Either analysis can be seen as true
If you feel that a vote is the process of voting, then those 7 votes are "re-counted" for different candidates as a second preference. Mathematically, if they were counted twice then we would have 50 votes on the table, not 43...but we don't, with the elimination of the last candidate the votes they accrued are nullified. The process is this:
A = 20 + 2
B = 16 + 5
C = 7 - 7
However if you feel that votes are choices you cast, then every round your vote is cast once more. The original votes of 20, 16 and 7 are counted, and then the second set of votes, 22 and 21 are counted. Two sets of 43, every single voter having their vote counted equally to everyone else in the process.
If someone had their votes counted more than once, how would it look?
Well round one would look like above, 20, 16 and 7. Round two?
|| = 2
||||| = 5
If you are not counting the votes of those who have not moved their vote, or are having a vote counted for a different candidate, then the election solely comes down to those who transfer. But we can see from above that's not the case. The actual result is that Candidate A wins by 1 vote, yet if we follow basic logic and mathematics, that only those who move their votes are counted again, then candidate B should win, 5 votes to 2. It's impossible for the result to stand as it does where candidate A wins by one vote without accepting that everyone's vote is counted equally, regardless of vote transference.
Those who voted for the most popular two candidates, and therefore don't have to change preferences, aren't forgotten and only counted the once under AV. Either their vote counts still because it is not yet nullified and redistributed, or it is counted equally because every round means each current preference is counted as a new vote for everyone involved.
Simple.
Under AV you carry out your vote, by putting as many preferences down as you want. Your vote is carried down the preference list you have stated as your candidates are eliminated. One vote, transferred as necessary.
Or perhaps you look at it like you put multiple votes down against multiple candidates, with only one vote counted per round regardless of which candidate is currently determined to have your support.
Take the following rows of "votes" for several candidates, A, B and C respectively:
|||||||||||||||||||| = 20
|||||||||||||||| = 16
||||||| = 7
You can see here, there's a total of 20 + 16 + 7 votes, or 43 votes.
The lowest candidate is eliminated, the votes stand as such...
|||||||||||||||||||||| = 22
||||||||||||||||||||| = 21
The total votes counted here is, again 43.
So who has had their vote counted more than once? If you follow the simple maths above, you'll see that no-one has had their vote counted more than once, or rather that everyone has had their vote counted more than once. Either analysis can be seen as true
If you feel that a vote is the process of voting, then those 7 votes are "re-counted" for different candidates as a second preference. Mathematically, if they were counted twice then we would have 50 votes on the table, not 43...but we don't, with the elimination of the last candidate the votes they accrued are nullified. The process is this:
A = 20 + 2
B = 16 + 5
C = 7 - 7
However if you feel that votes are choices you cast, then every round your vote is cast once more. The original votes of 20, 16 and 7 are counted, and then the second set of votes, 22 and 21 are counted. Two sets of 43, every single voter having their vote counted equally to everyone else in the process.
If someone had their votes counted more than once, how would it look?
Well round one would look like above, 20, 16 and 7. Round two?
|| = 2
||||| = 5
If you are not counting the votes of those who have not moved their vote, or are having a vote counted for a different candidate, then the election solely comes down to those who transfer. But we can see from above that's not the case. The actual result is that Candidate A wins by 1 vote, yet if we follow basic logic and mathematics, that only those who move their votes are counted again, then candidate B should win, 5 votes to 2. It's impossible for the result to stand as it does where candidate A wins by one vote without accepting that everyone's vote is counted equally, regardless of vote transference.
Those who voted for the most popular two candidates, and therefore don't have to change preferences, aren't forgotten and only counted the once under AV. Either their vote counts still because it is not yet nullified and redistributed, or it is counted equally because every round means each current preference is counted as a new vote for everyone involved.
Simple.
A moron's view on FPTP being better
We have a grade A, top class idiot working the #no2av ranks at the moment. Find him on Twitter at @DBirkin. He's been pretty consistently irked by me for a while, and decided to delete my comment for being too "childish and insulting", despite being quite toned down by comparison to my remake below.
His comment that I replied to...with comments below each point. I can be as childish and insulting as I want here thankfully! You may need to go to his site to get the context for each numbered point. Though beware, who knows what he'll change to try and save face in the future.
No 2 AV, along with Mr @DBirkin, are all over the place. On Twitter right now they're trying to use the rather measured opinion of one Guardian journalist, who claims AV *might* not be used much more differently to FPTP (with no proof other than a completely different country, that he doesn't even really try to claim is proof), to state most will vote the FPTP way. @DBirkin says opposite. Each day is a delight with the No 2 AV crowd. Will AV be more proportional, or less proportional? Will AV lead to coalitions or will it make stronger majorities? You name an argument and I can guarantee that No 2 AV will manage to argue themselves out of it making any sense!
@DBirkin is a moron that can't understand how his own analogies either don't work, fail to prove his point or actually disprove his point. This is one of those that fails to prove his point as he plays semantic acrobatics.
AV = everyone getting a vote, and that vote being transfered round by round until there's a winner.
DB way = everyone gets a vote, then after each round those that are eliminated get another vote to put against the remaining candidates.
He honestly thinks this proves that AV is a system that is one that counts multiple votes for some while only 1 for others. Like I said, moron.
In AV, you have one vote no matter who you are, it's a single action (a vote) and it's reallocated based on who's in and out. It's counted every round...regardless of if it moves to someone else or not, it's counted every round.
In DB way you may have multiple votes, but every round each vote is counted exactly the same, whether it is a new vote or an old vote. Everyones vote is counted every round.
It's not just the result that is the same, it's the whole method of deciding who's won or not. Quibble semantic bollocks all you like about how many "votes" there are, the fact remains that under AV everyones opinion in each round is taken exactly the same amount of times as anyone else voting.
I mean...I'm amazed I even have to spell this out. It's the reason that despite perhaps being a little insulting to poor old @DBirkin, I feel justified...because he is a cretin and hours worth of otherwise polite reasoning doesn't get these simple and basic concepts in to his head.
Maths failure, as if that's a surprise with "1+0 = 0" @DBirkin. A margin of error goes both ways, it could mean that in each successive round the amount people support the candidate they vote for grows relatively to others that remain voting for their first choice.
The fact is you can't measure it either way, the voting system doesn't want to measure it, to introduce this as an argument is to both undermine the legitimacy of FPTP, and to ignore the potential for making AV more legitimate than FPTP on the issue of having a candidate who's voters care about them more. Simply put it's mathematically unprovable to make the statements @DBirkin makes, but we know he'll go and make them anyway because it suits him to be a misleading shit.
So it slants the result towards being more representative then, doesn't it. I've analogised the hell out of this point, but if you ask everyone their view you have a simplistic view of what the majority is. In 100% of the cases asking the voters of failed candidates to move their vote to someone still remaining further ensures that the winner is endorsed by the voting population. There is not a single situation under which FPTP can show us more accurately who the popular candidate is without relying on pure chance.
So yes, it slants the result, to make it demonstrably more representative, 100% of the time.
It's an entirely pedantic point to try and claim that 50% in the final round isn't the same as 50% of voters (and vice versa). The reality is that under FPTP if you spoil your ballot your vote isn't counted. It's recorded, but the fact you are saying "I don't want a candidate, this is a protest", or a mistake in some cases, means it's not a vote.
Under AV, you have the opportunity of taking that route if the public opinion goes such a way that you can't be bothered about who's elected, you'd rather have neither. Your preferences are recorded up to that point, but if the final two candidates are people you've not preferenced then you are essentially choosing to spoil your ballot late in the process. At that point your vote doesn't count in the result. You know this, you don't care, otherwise you'd have put down a full preference list.
It's not that you don't count if this happens, it's just that you don't count as part of the electorate (who are people that put a valid vote for a candidate in all rounds up until and including the final round counted, which under FPTP is the only round of course).
Like I say, pedantic, but it just generally annoys me that we're in a situation where we can say an MP got over 50% of the votes under FPTP, but this is based on data that doesn't include spoiled ballots. It's hypocrisy to talk about a term but change the definition of it halfway to suit your argument.
@DBirkin here doing the fantastical and trying to claim that there is "form" in electoral systems where boundaries, seats, candidates and political opinion all change, that mean we can put "odds" on a future result being a certain way!
Now, if we were 3 months from an election, with opinion polls, especially regionals, I'd agree with him. We could confidently stand there and talk about odds...as we'd have the information.
How he uses odds is moronic though. It is akin to saying that we know Manchester United will win the premiership next season (or at least that they are favourites) based on this seasons results despite them going on to lose their number 1 and 2 goalkeepers, cutting back their training schedule, and sack their manager...all things that we both a) wouldn't know was coming and b) would render previous form factors irrelevant and useless.
@DBirkin claims that AV would lead to more coalitions, I explain the multitude of factors that would make that likely or not...factors we don't know...and this is his response? And he doesn't skip a beat before essentially accepting he's absolutely wrong? Oh, wait, he's weaseling too with his absolutely fundamental lack of mathematical skills.
More candidates = more variety of results all the time? Really? Funny, you see under FPTP I can see that being a possibility. The greatly reduced threshold for winning that happens every time a credible candidate comes along and splits the vote..it's very feasible for greater varieties of MPs to be elected at low (non-existent in representative terms) mandates.
With AV those extra candidates don't mean anything unless they're one of the 2 or 3 most popular. To clarify... AV means that you can have many many more candidates involved, but no matter how many you add the 2 or 3 most popular will never be under threat of losing their rightful seat.
@DBirkin swerves the point masterfully! The point was that a claim was made that AV would mean politicians dilute their policies. Aside from this argument being absolutely moronic in a democratic view (Yes, politicians will offer things that the public wants them to do..shock horror!), it is also completely applicable to FPTP (Tories saying they had no plans for VAT?).
But then we swerve in to this. AV we won't know policies? Well again, Tories tried to make out they wouldn't increase VAT, the Lib Dems tried to make out they would not raise tuition fees, god knows Labour must have made some claim it wouldn't keep (like not introducing tuition fees, giving us a referendum on the voting system...etc..etc).
The system currently has politicians lying left right and center, as they only need to convince a small percentage of swing voters to move their vote, and after that it doesn't really matter any more. Under AV the numbers you need to convince to support you, across preferences, mean there will be much greater pressure to follow up what they claim. There is also no proof whatsoever that AV would lead to politicians all coming out with the same/similar manifestos.
---
Does this look like I'm "running out of arguments"? Of course not. I may be crass at times, insulting, maybe childish...but perhaps that's because I feel I need to self-sabotage myself given how damn clear the arguments against dross like the above is, and it doesn't feel like a fair fight otherwise?
His comment that I replied to...with comments below each point. I can be as childish and insulting as I want here thankfully! You may need to go to his site to get the context for each numbered point. Though beware, who knows what he'll change to try and save face in the future.
1. Yes people can do that, but they will be disadvataged because most will vote the AV way.
No 2 AV, along with Mr @DBirkin, are all over the place. On Twitter right now they're trying to use the rather measured opinion of one Guardian journalist, who claims AV *might* not be used much more differently to FPTP (with no proof other than a completely different country, that he doesn't even really try to claim is proof), to state most will vote the FPTP way. @DBirkin says opposite. Each day is a delight with the No 2 AV crowd. Will AV be more proportional, or less proportional? Will AV lead to coalitions or will it make stronger majorities? You name an argument and I can guarantee that No 2 AV will manage to argue themselves out of it making any sense!
2. No, quite clearly only the eliminated get to vote again the DB way, i should know, I came up with it.
@DBirkin is a moron that can't understand how his own analogies either don't work, fail to prove his point or actually disprove his point. This is one of those that fails to prove his point as he plays semantic acrobatics.
AV = everyone getting a vote, and that vote being transfered round by round until there's a winner.
DB way = everyone gets a vote, then after each round those that are eliminated get another vote to put against the remaining candidates.
He honestly thinks this proves that AV is a system that is one that counts multiple votes for some while only 1 for others. Like I said, moron.
In AV, you have one vote no matter who you are, it's a single action (a vote) and it's reallocated based on who's in and out. It's counted every round...regardless of if it moves to someone else or not, it's counted every round.
In DB way you may have multiple votes, but every round each vote is counted exactly the same, whether it is a new vote or an old vote. Everyones vote is counted every round.
It's not just the result that is the same, it's the whole method of deciding who's won or not. Quibble semantic bollocks all you like about how many "votes" there are, the fact remains that under AV everyones opinion in each round is taken exactly the same amount of times as anyone else voting.
I mean...I'm amazed I even have to spell this out. It's the reason that despite perhaps being a little insulting to poor old @DBirkin, I feel justified...because he is a cretin and hours worth of otherwise polite reasoning doesn't get these simple and basic concepts in to his head.
3. This is true, FPTP assumes everyone's endorsement is their endorsement. So there is a margin of error there. Now compound this by taking away candidates and asking them to do it again...and again and each round gets worse for accuracy.
Maths failure, as if that's a surprise with "1+0 = 0" @DBirkin. A margin of error goes both ways, it could mean that in each successive round the amount people support the candidate they vote for grows relatively to others that remain voting for their first choice.
The fact is you can't measure it either way, the voting system doesn't want to measure it, to introduce this as an argument is to both undermine the legitimacy of FPTP, and to ignore the potential for making AV more legitimate than FPTP on the issue of having a candidate who's voters care about them more. Simply put it's mathematically unprovable to make the statements @DBirkin makes, but we know he'll go and make them anyway because it suits him to be a misleading shit.
4)More opinions are taken into account..from the same 35% of people, which slants the result more than if you only asked everyone for one opinion.
So it slants the result towards being more representative then, doesn't it. I've analogised the hell out of this point, but if you ask everyone their view you have a simplistic view of what the majority is. In 100% of the cases asking the voters of failed candidates to move their vote to someone still remaining further ensures that the winner is endorsed by the voting population. There is not a single situation under which FPTP can show us more accurately who the popular candidate is without relying on pure chance.
So yes, it slants the result, to make it demonstrably more representative, 100% of the time.
5)Its not perdantic. Just because someone didn't pick one of two candidates from a starting line of 8-12 ish, doesn't mean they don't count as voters.
If the only way to get a high percentage is to eliminate people so they are no longer voters, how does that make it better?
It's an entirely pedantic point to try and claim that 50% in the final round isn't the same as 50% of voters (and vice versa). The reality is that under FPTP if you spoil your ballot your vote isn't counted. It's recorded, but the fact you are saying "I don't want a candidate, this is a protest", or a mistake in some cases, means it's not a vote.
Under AV, you have the opportunity of taking that route if the public opinion goes such a way that you can't be bothered about who's elected, you'd rather have neither. Your preferences are recorded up to that point, but if the final two candidates are people you've not preferenced then you are essentially choosing to spoil your ballot late in the process. At that point your vote doesn't count in the result. You know this, you don't care, otherwise you'd have put down a full preference list.
It's not that you don't count if this happens, it's just that you don't count as part of the electorate (who are people that put a valid vote for a candidate in all rounds up until and including the final round counted, which under FPTP is the only round of course).
Like I say, pedantic, but it just generally annoys me that we're in a situation where we can say an MP got over 50% of the votes under FPTP, but this is based on data that doesn't include spoiled ballots. It's hypocrisy to talk about a term but change the definition of it halfway to suit your argument.
6)I agree, PR is not involved here, though 1/4 is not good odds and it would be niave to suggest different electoral systems can not favour PR without being PR.
@DBirkin here doing the fantastical and trying to claim that there is "form" in electoral systems where boundaries, seats, candidates and political opinion all change, that mean we can put "odds" on a future result being a certain way!
Now, if we were 3 months from an election, with opinion polls, especially regionals, I'd agree with him. We could confidently stand there and talk about odds...as we'd have the information.
How he uses odds is moronic though. It is akin to saying that we know Manchester United will win the premiership next season (or at least that they are favourites) based on this seasons results despite them going on to lose their number 1 and 2 goalkeepers, cutting back their training schedule, and sack their manager...all things that we both a) wouldn't know was coming and b) would render previous form factors irrelevant and useless.
7) Obviously you cannot prove something which hasn't happened yet, so you're asking the impossible. However we can predict. Any system which is said to encourage more people to stand for election will from time to time elect those people. (otherwise they wouldn't stand). In which case the big two's MP count goes down...coalitions.
@DBirkin claims that AV would lead to more coalitions, I explain the multitude of factors that would make that likely or not...factors we don't know...and this is his response? And he doesn't skip a beat before essentially accepting he's absolutely wrong? Oh, wait, he's weaseling too with his absolutely fundamental lack of mathematical skills.
More candidates = more variety of results all the time? Really? Funny, you see under FPTP I can see that being a possibility. The greatly reduced threshold for winning that happens every time a credible candidate comes along and splits the vote..it's very feasible for greater varieties of MPs to be elected at low (non-existent in representative terms) mandates.
With AV those extra candidates don't mean anything unless they're one of the 2 or 3 most popular. To clarify... AV means that you can have many many more candidates involved, but no matter how many you add the 2 or 3 most popular will never be under threat of losing their rightful seat.
8)I am not saying all policies are enacted under fptp, but atleast you know their rough policies. Under AV you will not even know that.
@DBirkin swerves the point masterfully! The point was that a claim was made that AV would mean politicians dilute their policies. Aside from this argument being absolutely moronic in a democratic view (Yes, politicians will offer things that the public wants them to do..shock horror!), it is also completely applicable to FPTP (Tories saying they had no plans for VAT?).
But then we swerve in to this. AV we won't know policies? Well again, Tories tried to make out they wouldn't increase VAT, the Lib Dems tried to make out they would not raise tuition fees, god knows Labour must have made some claim it wouldn't keep (like not introducing tuition fees, giving us a referendum on the voting system...etc..etc).
The system currently has politicians lying left right and center, as they only need to convince a small percentage of swing voters to move their vote, and after that it doesn't really matter any more. Under AV the numbers you need to convince to support you, across preferences, mean there will be much greater pressure to follow up what they claim. There is also no proof whatsoever that AV would lead to politicians all coming out with the same/similar manifestos.
---
Does this look like I'm "running out of arguments"? Of course not. I may be crass at times, insulting, maybe childish...but perhaps that's because I feel I need to self-sabotage myself given how damn clear the arguments against dross like the above is, and it doesn't feel like a fair fight otherwise?
AV doesn't make a difference?
An astounding argument against AV is that it "doesn't make a difference" to the result of FPTP. I say astounding because logically it begs the question that, if it is *at worst* the same as FPTP, then why not move to it for the potential benefits?
It's like I have a car, does about 30 miles to the gallon if being economical, no airbag. If I want to look for another car, do I discount all the other cars that have better security, better safety, because at worst (being uneconomical) it also does 30 miles to the gallon, and because I don't expect to crash so the inclusion of an airbag doesn't make a difference to me right now?
Of course it doesn't. Moving to a system where it's worst outcome is the best outcome of the old system means that the possibility is there for improvement...at the wishes of those taking part
If those taking part wish to perform like it were FPTP, fine, that's their choice. It'll also be an available option, one I believe that'll be taken by a significant number of voters, to do more than FPTP can offer in terms of allowing their voice to be heard.
Stating that AV might not make much of a difference than FPTP is irrelevant, it's what it allows in terms of further difference that matters...whether voters choose to use that extra influence or not is their choice, and a choice that they should be able to make on their own terms, not solely on the terms of people that prefer that less economical and less safe car.
It's like I have a car, does about 30 miles to the gallon if being economical, no airbag. If I want to look for another car, do I discount all the other cars that have better security, better safety, because at worst (being uneconomical) it also does 30 miles to the gallon, and because I don't expect to crash so the inclusion of an airbag doesn't make a difference to me right now?
Of course it doesn't. Moving to a system where it's worst outcome is the best outcome of the old system means that the possibility is there for improvement...at the wishes of those taking part
If those taking part wish to perform like it were FPTP, fine, that's their choice. It'll also be an available option, one I believe that'll be taken by a significant number of voters, to do more than FPTP can offer in terms of allowing their voice to be heard.
Stating that AV might not make much of a difference than FPTP is irrelevant, it's what it allows in terms of further difference that matters...whether voters choose to use that extra influence or not is their choice, and a choice that they should be able to make on their own terms, not solely on the terms of people that prefer that less economical and less safe car.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Calder Valley, tactical voting hotspot
Calder Valley is an interesting place, election wise. A fair margin under FPTP keeps the Tories ahead, some 6-7k votes ahead. But still, this is only 40% of the total vote.
Under FPTP there is some tactical voting that can go on. If Labour wanted to push the "two horse race" angle, and the Lib Dems followed, Labour could win in Calder Valley...not necessarily too likely though. Lib Dems locally would almost have to give up.
Under AV though there is an opportunity for a simple tactical vote, though not perhaps how you'd expect.
Due to the percentages, 39.39%, 26.97% and 25.18% for Tories, Labour and Lib Dems in that order, AV can open things up to electoral tactics.
If people were honest then you could probably expect that one of two things would happen. Either the Lib Dem vote would heavily sway to Labour, in which case Labour may well just about sneak a victory, or the vote would split and go to both Tories and Labour...in which case Tories would still win.
The Tories may well think...I'd hate for Labour to win here, I want our MP to know we prefer someone else...so 930 voters for the Tories go and back the Lib Dems, putting the Lib Dems ahead of Labour now by 1 vote. Suddenly Labour are the third party. They're not going to give their votes to the Tories, only to the Lib Dems (and who knows, maybe not even the Lib Dems any more!).
The result? Again, either the Tories win...or this time the Lib Dems might sneak a victory. Labour would be robbed of their possible slight win because the Tories manufactured the Lib Dems to come second.
But this situation is extremely rare. It requires a) for the difference between the first and second placed candidate to be less than half the total vote of the third placed candidate in the penultimate round (if we follow voter polling on how often they'd transfer), b) the Tories and Labour to be first and second, mainly because they don't tend to try and get one another to win instead of the Lib Dems (though this may change) and c) requires the change of place between second and third place to be achieved through a small percentage (a realistic number) of tactical votes...perhaps around 1000-2000 for a typical constituency.
Under FPTP there is some tactical voting that can go on. If Labour wanted to push the "two horse race" angle, and the Lib Dems followed, Labour could win in Calder Valley...not necessarily too likely though. Lib Dems locally would almost have to give up.
Under AV though there is an opportunity for a simple tactical vote, though not perhaps how you'd expect.
Due to the percentages, 39.39%, 26.97% and 25.18% for Tories, Labour and Lib Dems in that order, AV can open things up to electoral tactics.
If people were honest then you could probably expect that one of two things would happen. Either the Lib Dem vote would heavily sway to Labour, in which case Labour may well just about sneak a victory, or the vote would split and go to both Tories and Labour...in which case Tories would still win.
The Tories may well think...I'd hate for Labour to win here, I want our MP to know we prefer someone else...so 930 voters for the Tories go and back the Lib Dems, putting the Lib Dems ahead of Labour now by 1 vote. Suddenly Labour are the third party. They're not going to give their votes to the Tories, only to the Lib Dems (and who knows, maybe not even the Lib Dems any more!).
The result? Again, either the Tories win...or this time the Lib Dems might sneak a victory. Labour would be robbed of their possible slight win because the Tories manufactured the Lib Dems to come second.
But this situation is extremely rare. It requires a) for the difference between the first and second placed candidate to be less than half the total vote of the third placed candidate in the penultimate round (if we follow voter polling on how often they'd transfer), b) the Tories and Labour to be first and second, mainly because they don't tend to try and get one another to win instead of the Lib Dems (though this may change) and c) requires the change of place between second and third place to be achieved through a small percentage (a realistic number) of tactical votes...perhaps around 1000-2000 for a typical constituency.
AV increasing majorities now too?
This is touching on my previous discussion about analysis that claims Labour would have won a greater majority in 2005, and is a hard thing to write about on Twitter alone! If you're in a rush, read the next paragraph, if not then read past it. :)
tl;dr? AV means each constituency MP is representative, and where a government gets a greater majority, it is because local people have had a chance to say they don't want an opposition MP's policies before the governments. Simply put, AV ensures a more accurate picture of the policies we want than FPTP, it's less that AV would have increased the majorities, more than FPTP decreased them!
There is a concern out there that AV might entrench government majorities (which, ironically, is the complete opposite of those that claim that AV will cause coalitions...couldn't make it up). My stance remains the same regardless of people talking about greater majorities or more coalitions... AV as a system alone isn't the cause of that, it's to do with real public opinion and how it's spread nationally.
But let's just imagine we are in that 2005 scenario, or 1997 (as opposed to 1992 were it'd reduce the majority, or 1983 where it'd be more proportional but exactly the same majority!). Is it unfair? Is it wrong?
I don't think so. We are working under AV or FPTP in single member constituencies. We make our government not through national public opinion, but by representation by MPs. When our parliament is formed, each MP represents the collective opinion of their local area. Then, based on what party the MPs are a member to, we make our government.
It's important we understand, while working under single member constituencies we CANNOT form a government that is assured to be proportional. All we can do is ensure that each 1/650th (or less if boundary changes come in) is representative of our views locally.
FPTP doesn't ensure this happens. It doesn't mean FPTP is unrepresentative, just that in some cases we can't be sure, in some cases it's clear it's most likely not representative of real views. When AV is claimed to increase majorities over FPTP it is because AV is allowing the local population, who's vote must be fairly split for this to happen, to say that they would prefer the policies of the government over that of the opposition.
Whereas under FPTP an opposition MP may get a seat while over 50% of the voters oppose their policies, creating a fake extra opposition MP, under AV those same voters can rally, and rather than end up being supported by a right winger that doesn't represent their generally left wing views, or a left winger who doesn't support their generally right wing views, they end up with a candidate actually furthering their wishes for national direction.
This is why, whether AV returns a more hung parliament, or a greater majority (as it can do both, remember!), in both cases it is more representative of the nations actual desires for policy on a constituency by constituency basis, and so returns a more representative parliament, and a more representative ratio of government to opposition.
tl;dr? AV means each constituency MP is representative, and where a government gets a greater majority, it is because local people have had a chance to say they don't want an opposition MP's policies before the governments. Simply put, AV ensures a more accurate picture of the policies we want than FPTP, it's less that AV would have increased the majorities, more than FPTP decreased them!
There is a concern out there that AV might entrench government majorities (which, ironically, is the complete opposite of those that claim that AV will cause coalitions...couldn't make it up). My stance remains the same regardless of people talking about greater majorities or more coalitions... AV as a system alone isn't the cause of that, it's to do with real public opinion and how it's spread nationally.
But let's just imagine we are in that 2005 scenario, or 1997 (as opposed to 1992 were it'd reduce the majority, or 1983 where it'd be more proportional but exactly the same majority!). Is it unfair? Is it wrong?
I don't think so. We are working under AV or FPTP in single member constituencies. We make our government not through national public opinion, but by representation by MPs. When our parliament is formed, each MP represents the collective opinion of their local area. Then, based on what party the MPs are a member to, we make our government.
It's important we understand, while working under single member constituencies we CANNOT form a government that is assured to be proportional. All we can do is ensure that each 1/650th (or less if boundary changes come in) is representative of our views locally.
FPTP doesn't ensure this happens. It doesn't mean FPTP is unrepresentative, just that in some cases we can't be sure, in some cases it's clear it's most likely not representative of real views. When AV is claimed to increase majorities over FPTP it is because AV is allowing the local population, who's vote must be fairly split for this to happen, to say that they would prefer the policies of the government over that of the opposition.
Whereas under FPTP an opposition MP may get a seat while over 50% of the voters oppose their policies, creating a fake extra opposition MP, under AV those same voters can rally, and rather than end up being supported by a right winger that doesn't represent their generally left wing views, or a left winger who doesn't support their generally right wing views, they end up with a candidate actually furthering their wishes for national direction.
This is why, whether AV returns a more hung parliament, or a greater majority (as it can do both, remember!), in both cases it is more representative of the nations actual desires for policy on a constituency by constituency basis, and so returns a more representative parliament, and a more representative ratio of government to opposition.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
That AV weighting thing again...
Some people get entirely confused over preferences, to the degree they think people's second preferences are counting more than other people's first preferences. Please think about how this system really works.
AV isn't about totalling up everyone's opinion of preference cumulatively, it's about totalling up peoples absolute votes...their expressions of endorsement of a candidate.
When we go into each round of voting we are essentially re-running the election, asking everyone to keep their results the same where their candidate is still running, and for everyone else to re-allocate their vote to someone still in the running where their candidate has been eliminated. Their preference order doesn't really come in to it other than as a factor of allowing the system to run automatically round by round.
If the exact same system was used but non-instantaneously (the system,Run Off or Exhaustive voting, used by the Tories to elect their leader, and the House of Commons to elect their Speaker), where there is a gap and a re-vote between each round, no-one would call the vote cast a preference...it'd simply be a vote, counted equally with all the others cast alongside it.
The question asked, round after round (though instantaneously through the use of a preferential order), is "Which of these candidates is best for the job", where one candidate is removed each time to narrow the field. It's not "Please rate this candidate out of 10, we'll add all the scores up at the end".
You can *try* to weight those votes, the second preferences and beyond, but you'd be wrong, as this person has only one vote...an endorsement to carry someone to office...and where it ends up is a statement of only one thing...
"I want this candidate more than I want any of the others still standing".
So when, under AV, someone wins on 55% when they would have come "second" under FPTP with 30%...it's not that 25% of people voting for them care any less, all 55% will have said they want that person more than anyone else still in the running, beating the other 45% minority. Ask those people in the street and they may explain their choices, but will ultimately reinforce that if the options came down to it again, they would still vote, and endorse, that same candidate over the other available.
To claim that any of that re-allocated vote means less than someone else's is to call in to question the whole validity of FPTP as a system as well. After all, can we ever be sure that a winner on 40% has as much "belief" or "support" behind them as the second place person on 30%?
Or, really, do we understand that a voting system (at least a single member constituency based one) is a binary process...and that it's easy to get confused by the use of "preferences" meaning people care progressively less, when the reality is that the voting system cares not how much you support each preference...only that you do support that preference enough to put a mark down, or not.
AV isn't about totalling up everyone's opinion of preference cumulatively, it's about totalling up peoples absolute votes...their expressions of endorsement of a candidate.
When we go into each round of voting we are essentially re-running the election, asking everyone to keep their results the same where their candidate is still running, and for everyone else to re-allocate their vote to someone still in the running where their candidate has been eliminated. Their preference order doesn't really come in to it other than as a factor of allowing the system to run automatically round by round.
If the exact same system was used but non-instantaneously (the system,Run Off or Exhaustive voting, used by the Tories to elect their leader, and the House of Commons to elect their Speaker), where there is a gap and a re-vote between each round, no-one would call the vote cast a preference...it'd simply be a vote, counted equally with all the others cast alongside it.
The question asked, round after round (though instantaneously through the use of a preferential order), is "Which of these candidates is best for the job", where one candidate is removed each time to narrow the field. It's not "Please rate this candidate out of 10, we'll add all the scores up at the end".
You can *try* to weight those votes, the second preferences and beyond, but you'd be wrong, as this person has only one vote...an endorsement to carry someone to office...and where it ends up is a statement of only one thing...
"I want this candidate more than I want any of the others still standing".
So when, under AV, someone wins on 55% when they would have come "second" under FPTP with 30%...it's not that 25% of people voting for them care any less, all 55% will have said they want that person more than anyone else still in the running, beating the other 45% minority. Ask those people in the street and they may explain their choices, but will ultimately reinforce that if the options came down to it again, they would still vote, and endorse, that same candidate over the other available.
To claim that any of that re-allocated vote means less than someone else's is to call in to question the whole validity of FPTP as a system as well. After all, can we ever be sure that a winner on 40% has as much "belief" or "support" behind them as the second place person on 30%?
Or, really, do we understand that a voting system (at least a single member constituency based one) is a binary process...and that it's easy to get confused by the use of "preferences" meaning people care progressively less, when the reality is that the voting system cares not how much you support each preference...only that you do support that preference enough to put a mark down, or not.
Monday, 7 February 2011
AV and 2005
Analysis has previously been carried out on the 2005 election, as to what would have happened under AV. In this case it's suggested that Labour would have increased their majority under AV, despite the controversy over the war.
These analysis' are always risky. For a start they assume that every person would vote exactly the same first preference under AV, something we know isn't the case, even on the most conservative estimates of tactical voting. Secondly they assume preferences based on a leading question.
"If the voting paper had required you to give two votes, in order of preference, which party would you have put as your second preference?"
Thirdly this study is a national study that, despite likely being broken down in to key political areas (North West, South West, London, etc), can't give an accurate appraisal of local views and deviation from the national average.
So on several levels we should be cautious about the study. Realise I'm saying this in relation to the broadness of what information is used, and as such not only could it be over-estimating the benefit Labour would have gained...it could also be under-estimating it. My only suggestion here is that it's not a good practice to rely on this data too heavily.
But let's assume this study is bang on.
Is it proof that AV would be less fair?
Arguments can easily go that as it would make parliament less proportional, this is less fair. It's a fine argument, legitimate...but unfortunately not one that has any place in a debate between two systems that simply do not care about proportionality. One year's system that provides a less proportional result could provide a more proportional the next...it's based solely on spread of opinion, not the system.
For example, in 2005 AV would have made (if we believe the study 100%) things less proportional. In 1992 it would have made things more proportional. It's swings and round abouts, based on the *real* popularity of the parties.
The thing with 2005 is that if Labour really would have won a greater majority under AV, it'd be because that's what people wanted.
It would have come down to the fact that there were more constituencies where Lib Dems were placed third than where other parties were placed third, and that Lib Dem voters would tend to feel that (despite the centralised campaign being so vocal about the war) voting for Labour is a better evil than letting the Tories in with their (at the time) heavy anti-immigration and anti-poor agenda.
This comes back to my previous post about what is "fair". Crying about the potential for someone you (as an individual) really dislike getting a better share of the House of Commons under AV...and claiming this is proof of AV's failing, completely ignores the greater will of the nation, and ignores the narrow relevance of your own individual view on what is a "correct" result.
In 2005 less people will have got their first preference under AV, assuming that under FPTP everyone has voted entirely the way they truly wanted the result to go, but they would have got a parliament that really represents the balance of their views from a local context, not allowing (in this case) Tories to pick up seats where local constituents would rather have backed Labour than the Tories.
In short, if 2005 would have caused a larger majority for Blair, it's because people still really didn't get along with the Tories on a constituency by constituency basis.
These analysis' are always risky. For a start they assume that every person would vote exactly the same first preference under AV, something we know isn't the case, even on the most conservative estimates of tactical voting. Secondly they assume preferences based on a leading question.
"If the voting paper had required you to give two votes, in order of preference, which party would you have put as your second preference?"
Thirdly this study is a national study that, despite likely being broken down in to key political areas (North West, South West, London, etc), can't give an accurate appraisal of local views and deviation from the national average.
So on several levels we should be cautious about the study. Realise I'm saying this in relation to the broadness of what information is used, and as such not only could it be over-estimating the benefit Labour would have gained...it could also be under-estimating it. My only suggestion here is that it's not a good practice to rely on this data too heavily.
But let's assume this study is bang on.
Is it proof that AV would be less fair?
Arguments can easily go that as it would make parliament less proportional, this is less fair. It's a fine argument, legitimate...but unfortunately not one that has any place in a debate between two systems that simply do not care about proportionality. One year's system that provides a less proportional result could provide a more proportional the next...it's based solely on spread of opinion, not the system.
For example, in 2005 AV would have made (if we believe the study 100%) things less proportional. In 1992 it would have made things more proportional. It's swings and round abouts, based on the *real* popularity of the parties.
The thing with 2005 is that if Labour really would have won a greater majority under AV, it'd be because that's what people wanted.
It would have come down to the fact that there were more constituencies where Lib Dems were placed third than where other parties were placed third, and that Lib Dem voters would tend to feel that (despite the centralised campaign being so vocal about the war) voting for Labour is a better evil than letting the Tories in with their (at the time) heavy anti-immigration and anti-poor agenda.
This comes back to my previous post about what is "fair". Crying about the potential for someone you (as an individual) really dislike getting a better share of the House of Commons under AV...and claiming this is proof of AV's failing, completely ignores the greater will of the nation, and ignores the narrow relevance of your own individual view on what is a "correct" result.
In 2005 less people will have got their first preference under AV, assuming that under FPTP everyone has voted entirely the way they truly wanted the result to go, but they would have got a parliament that really represents the balance of their views from a local context, not allowing (in this case) Tories to pick up seats where local constituents would rather have backed Labour than the Tories.
In short, if 2005 would have caused a larger majority for Blair, it's because people still really didn't get along with the Tories on a constituency by constituency basis.
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Fair: Adj....
This article is a longish one (as usual). At the end I've got a simple analogy that demonstrates how AV is fairer than FPTP. Want to skip to the end?
"fair [fair]
adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun, verb
–adjective
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge."
"if a situation is fair, everyone is treated equally and in a reasonable way"
"a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism"
"1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:"
"treating everyone equally and according to the rules or law"
I can understand why people on the No2AV side get confused with why we, on the Yes side, say AV is fairer. It's not just a buzz word, it's not spin, it's based purely on the actual definition of fairness (a few variations of which I've provided above!)
Basically, a FPTP supporter believes that their system is fair. On one level it is entirely fair, everyone that is registered to vote gets one vote that they can exercise at their leisure (or not at all, it's their choice). If you try and compare too quickly it can easily appear that AV is less fair than this; but if you think this you need to think a little bit longer about what AV actually does.
AV is a series of FPTP elections in "what if scenarios". If you believe that FPTP is fair, because everyone gets a chance to vote once for one person...the exact same thing happens under AV.
Round 1: 10 people vote for A, 7 for B and 3 for C.
Round 2: 11 people vote for A, 9 for B.
Each round is it's own FPTP election, except rather than the "winner" being singled out, it is the much more accurate measure of who the "loser" is.
So that's level 1, every vote is equal and every person has the same opportunity to cast that vote as they wish. AV is equally as fair as FPTP in this regard.
But the question then is how else can we describe FPTP as fair? The opportunity to make a vote is equal, but are the votes themselves equal? They each count the same, so you might presume yes. But the reality is this...
If 40% vote Labour under FPTP, and 35% vote for Tories...there are 25% of all votes cast that are irrelevant. If you took 5% of the Labour vote away, then that 5% would cost Labour the victory. If the Tories had 5% of their support not vote, then those people have had a huge effect in not allowing the Tories a win. If the 25% of others don't turn up...well...the result is the same.
FPTP treats minority views with disdain, and says not only that they might as well not have turned up...but that any further view they have is irrelevant. AV treats these minority sets of voters with more equality, not discriminating against them because they've not cast a vote for one of the top two candidates DESPITE having an opinion on them. It's for this reason that people vote tactically...to overcome the inbuilt unfairness of not allowing voters to fully express themselves if they need to, unlike those that are part of the largest minorities that (luckily for them) don't need to.
AV, as I've said, is just a series of FPTP elections under one vote. The reason it becomes fairer than FPTP is because it tells those who have lost that their opinion on the remaining candidates still matters.
The question for those that support FPTP, and claim not only that FPTP is fair but that AV is unfair, is this...
If under FPTP there are three candidates running, X, Y and Z, where X has the plurality of votes, yet under AV Y would win because of Z's votes transferring to them, how is this any different (and thus less fair) than if Z had never run in the first place under FPTP, and Z supporters chose to vote for Y anyway?
The irony is this...any claim that AV is less fair than FPTP is to claim that FPTP elections that happen right now are also unfair in their result. But the reality is that the result has allowed every person, in every round, to state their preference in equality with every other voter...it has simply done more than FPTP in recognising that voters may have not only an opinion as such as "I like Lib Dem more than any other party", but also "But if Lib Dems weren't there, I'd like Labour before anyone else", and so on.
I know one argument that is going to come up here, and it's about "weighting". I've talked about this erroneous argument before of course, and it has no place in this discussion. Neither system is about how much people care about their vote, it's whether or not they do. FPTP and AV are binary systems, not analogue. We, quite rightly, never walk in and say "I feel I'll give 55% of a vote to this candidate today", it's either 1 vote or no vote. Simple.
In AV, if you're talking about "weighting" and "Someone's second preference counting more than someone's first" then you're getting caught up on an irrelevancy, you're viewing the system from an angle that doesn't actually matter in how it is practiced (or, more likely, you're trolling me...again).
If I have to move my vote to my second preference I am either voting for them or not. By voting for them I am saying I want them to be my MP. I am giving them another "1". I repeat from above, this situation is simply not unfair, and to claim it is unfair is to accept that FPTP is unfair in practice as well.
Disparity of how much each individual "cares" for their vote happens regardless of the system, it is both ignorant and deceitful to try and portray FPTP as a system where this difference in people's own weightings in comparison with each other doesn't exist either.
So this is how AV is more fair, it takes the equality of casting votes that is fair under FPTP, and then adds extra fairness by not discriminating against those that have had the misfortune to not be a part of the voting groups that need not give further than their first preference views; to not play favouritism towards the views alone of the largest two groups of voters without also letting the remaining voters the equal opportunity to have their choice between those two most popular candidates as well.
I'll end with an analogy, and you can decide for yourself which situation is most fair. There is a school class of 20 kids, and they have to decide what school play they're going to perform.
They vote between 3 different plays and the winning play is "The Three Musketeers", winning with 40% of the kids, 8 of them, saying they wanted to do it...beating "Cinderella" on 35% and "Romeo and Juliet" on 25%. All kids had one vote, written on a card in secret and then revealed at the same time to the teacher.
In the first scenario the vote stops there. 8 kids is enough to say what play will be done by all 20.
In the second scenario the teacher asks a different question after this, to those that didn't vote for the Three Musketeers or Cinderella to say which of those two plays they'd prefer. The teacher explains that clearly the most children want to perform either the Three Musketeers, or Cinderella, so it's only fair that the play that they perform is one of those two.
As it happens, those that voted for Romeo and Juliet all change their vote to Cinderella. They don't like the Three Musketeers. Cinderella wins, because 60% of the class want Cinderella more than the Three Musketeers.
So, I ask again...which situation produces the fairest result, and therefore is it really false for us to claim that AV is a fairer system than FPTP?
"fair [fair]
adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun, verb
–adjective
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge."
"if a situation is fair, everyone is treated equally and in a reasonable way"
"a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism"
"1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:"
"treating everyone equally and according to the rules or law"
I can understand why people on the No2AV side get confused with why we, on the Yes side, say AV is fairer. It's not just a buzz word, it's not spin, it's based purely on the actual definition of fairness (a few variations of which I've provided above!)
Basically, a FPTP supporter believes that their system is fair. On one level it is entirely fair, everyone that is registered to vote gets one vote that they can exercise at their leisure (or not at all, it's their choice). If you try and compare too quickly it can easily appear that AV is less fair than this; but if you think this you need to think a little bit longer about what AV actually does.
AV is a series of FPTP elections in "what if scenarios". If you believe that FPTP is fair, because everyone gets a chance to vote once for one person...the exact same thing happens under AV.
Round 1: 10 people vote for A, 7 for B and 3 for C.
Round 2: 11 people vote for A, 9 for B.
Each round is it's own FPTP election, except rather than the "winner" being singled out, it is the much more accurate measure of who the "loser" is.
So that's level 1, every vote is equal and every person has the same opportunity to cast that vote as they wish. AV is equally as fair as FPTP in this regard.
But the question then is how else can we describe FPTP as fair? The opportunity to make a vote is equal, but are the votes themselves equal? They each count the same, so you might presume yes. But the reality is this...
If 40% vote Labour under FPTP, and 35% vote for Tories...there are 25% of all votes cast that are irrelevant. If you took 5% of the Labour vote away, then that 5% would cost Labour the victory. If the Tories had 5% of their support not vote, then those people have had a huge effect in not allowing the Tories a win. If the 25% of others don't turn up...well...the result is the same.
FPTP treats minority views with disdain, and says not only that they might as well not have turned up...but that any further view they have is irrelevant. AV treats these minority sets of voters with more equality, not discriminating against them because they've not cast a vote for one of the top two candidates DESPITE having an opinion on them. It's for this reason that people vote tactically...to overcome the inbuilt unfairness of not allowing voters to fully express themselves if they need to, unlike those that are part of the largest minorities that (luckily for them) don't need to.
AV, as I've said, is just a series of FPTP elections under one vote. The reason it becomes fairer than FPTP is because it tells those who have lost that their opinion on the remaining candidates still matters.
The question for those that support FPTP, and claim not only that FPTP is fair but that AV is unfair, is this...
If under FPTP there are three candidates running, X, Y and Z, where X has the plurality of votes, yet under AV Y would win because of Z's votes transferring to them, how is this any different (and thus less fair) than if Z had never run in the first place under FPTP, and Z supporters chose to vote for Y anyway?
The irony is this...any claim that AV is less fair than FPTP is to claim that FPTP elections that happen right now are also unfair in their result. But the reality is that the result has allowed every person, in every round, to state their preference in equality with every other voter...it has simply done more than FPTP in recognising that voters may have not only an opinion as such as "I like Lib Dem more than any other party", but also "But if Lib Dems weren't there, I'd like Labour before anyone else", and so on.
I know one argument that is going to come up here, and it's about "weighting". I've talked about this erroneous argument before of course, and it has no place in this discussion. Neither system is about how much people care about their vote, it's whether or not they do. FPTP and AV are binary systems, not analogue. We, quite rightly, never walk in and say "I feel I'll give 55% of a vote to this candidate today", it's either 1 vote or no vote. Simple.
In AV, if you're talking about "weighting" and "Someone's second preference counting more than someone's first" then you're getting caught up on an irrelevancy, you're viewing the system from an angle that doesn't actually matter in how it is practiced (or, more likely, you're trolling me...again).
If I have to move my vote to my second preference I am either voting for them or not. By voting for them I am saying I want them to be my MP. I am giving them another "1". I repeat from above, this situation is simply not unfair, and to claim it is unfair is to accept that FPTP is unfair in practice as well.
Disparity of how much each individual "cares" for their vote happens regardless of the system, it is both ignorant and deceitful to try and portray FPTP as a system where this difference in people's own weightings in comparison with each other doesn't exist either.
So this is how AV is more fair, it takes the equality of casting votes that is fair under FPTP, and then adds extra fairness by not discriminating against those that have had the misfortune to not be a part of the voting groups that need not give further than their first preference views; to not play favouritism towards the views alone of the largest two groups of voters without also letting the remaining voters the equal opportunity to have their choice between those two most popular candidates as well.
I'll end with an analogy, and you can decide for yourself which situation is most fair. There is a school class of 20 kids, and they have to decide what school play they're going to perform.
They vote between 3 different plays and the winning play is "The Three Musketeers", winning with 40% of the kids, 8 of them, saying they wanted to do it...beating "Cinderella" on 35% and "Romeo and Juliet" on 25%. All kids had one vote, written on a card in secret and then revealed at the same time to the teacher.
In the first scenario the vote stops there. 8 kids is enough to say what play will be done by all 20.
In the second scenario the teacher asks a different question after this, to those that didn't vote for the Three Musketeers or Cinderella to say which of those two plays they'd prefer. The teacher explains that clearly the most children want to perform either the Three Musketeers, or Cinderella, so it's only fair that the play that they perform is one of those two.
As it happens, those that voted for Romeo and Juliet all change their vote to Cinderella. They don't like the Three Musketeers. Cinderella wins, because 60% of the class want Cinderella more than the Three Musketeers.
So, I ask again...which situation produces the fairest result, and therefore is it really false for us to claim that AV is a fairer system than FPTP?
Friday, 4 February 2011
Re: From Meh to No...
A fisking of @kilburnmat's post.
Ultimately I don't care what Matt does, I assume that in reality he was already leaning to "No" for some of the reasons he says below (like his irrational linking of Lib Dems to this referendum) and his personal bias allowed him to move easily from the "not caring" camp. But still, there are propogations of lies here, misunderstandings that need correcting, and subjective opinions and unknowable supposition as fact...and they need responding to.
"This May the British electorate face a choice as to whether they want to keep FPTP or adopt the AV system of elections for members of the lower chamber. Overall this as exciting a decision as helping Ken Barlow choose a tie, but the campaign has become a bit heated lately and wherever I sense an argument I’m straight in, as regular readers will well know (all one of you – hello mum)."
Hopefully this kind of article has increased his readership, but it's always nice when No campaigners place their personal opinion of how exciting something is as being a universal truth. Some people recognise the real benefits AV can bring, and are definitely excited about it being a possibility, myself one of them. It's only natural we all care about this subject in different amounts.
"The whole premise of the debate is being framed by ‘Yessers’, they will to you that AV represents a ‘fairer’ vote. They will tell you that AV is fairer, it is more democratic and as we get closer to the vote in May, that you’ll be more attractive to the opposite sex (probably)."
Remember this now, this is a a guy that is going to slam "hyperbole" later on in his comments, yet his style is dripping with it.
"In 2011, after a year of abuse the word ‘fair’ has about as much meaning as the word ‘progressive’ and an apology from Richard Keys. ‘Fairness’ as a concept is bloodied, bruised and begging to be left left alone, but still Yessers can sometimes talk like they have a monopoly on fairness."
Because fairness, despite any misuse of the term, still means something. Fair, ultimately, means best...but not just best in one context, best with all in consideration. A dictator having an easy life is best for him, but at the expense of a national infrastructure for healthcare, it's clearly not "fair". AV campaigners use the word fair because they recognise that AV isn't the best system, but it is a fairer one...a system that on balance gives more benefits in each of it's contexts than FPTP does.
"However, let’s look at it this way, if you give everyone of voting age one vote each, with the candidate that gets the most votes winning, that sounds like a pretty fair type of democracy to me."
This is the trouble, the "bloodied and bruised" word fair has already infiltrated your brain...you no longer understands what it means. Fair doesn't mean "equal". Everyone having the same vote (though we, on the AV side, dispute that every vote is actually equal under FPTP) may be described as "equal" in principle, but it is not necessarily fair.
If everyone in this country who was working had to pay exactly £10000 in taxes, by the same definition that Matt uses, it would be "fair", regardless of what they earned and what they could afford. This is why progressive (yes, dictionary definition here again) taxation is "fair", while not being "equal".
"Some people live in areas that have large populations of voters for a single party, but that is democracy."
It's pot luck.
"It does not mean a vote has less value"
It does, though I guess it depends on how you define "value". If you are looking at it as if everyone should get a gold star for having voting, then yes they are all counted the same and everyone who took part had an equal opportunity to have a say.
But if value is measured, as those supporting AV look at it, as how much you voting actually allows you to affect the result, then it's clear that anyone voting for someone other than the top 2 candidates might as well not have bothered turning up.
Say Tories win 40% vs Labour at 35% vs everyone else at 25%. If those 40% of Tories don't turn up they have lost their party an MP, if only 6% of them don't turn up, in fact...it's a big deal that can change their party's fortunes. Labour on the other hand...they can have almost 10% not turn up and it won't make any difference...even if up to 5% extra turn out it doesn't change anything, though I would argue that all have still taken part and by turning up have avoided being one of that 10% that could lose them their second placing.
And of course, those 25% could not turn up at all and it wouldn't change the result, nor really any future result. Turn up, don't turn up...what's it matter, your vote doesn't do shit under FPTP in that situation.
So don't pretend that under FPTP all votes have the same value to the result, it's an absolute and objectively measurable fallacy.
"it just means that in democratic terms that constituency/region should return a candidate for that party. In fact, if we want fairness shouldn’t we be giving candidates with bigger majorities a larger vote in parliament? (No, of course we shouldn’t)"
No, but not for the reasons you're angling towards, but more because along with votes not being equal, they're not given equally either. Just because an MP is voted in with 60% of the vote doesn't mean the electorate there care more for him than an MP elected in with 40% of the vote. We don't measure level of feeling on an individual level, and nothing about the AV or FPTP debate changes that (nor should it).
"It’s simply not the case that AV is fairer"
It is... I should say at this stage I'm fisking this as I go, so I'm hoping I'll have the opportunity to see some examples of why it is claimed that AV is less fair (or just as fair) as FPTP that I can counter...
"as there is no set definition of fairness."
Dictionaries would like to have a word with you about that slur against their name. For clarity...from Oxford...
"1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:
- the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members
- a fairer distribution of wealth"
AV achieves greater representation across the board, without favouring a minority because they're the largest grouping, than FPTP. Dictionary definition. AV is fairer than FPTP.
"What AV is, is an attempt by those who don’t like the results they get to change the system in their favour. If voters are too bunched up do something about boundaries (more on that later), do not chuck away a perfectly democratic system."
Ignoring boundaries (until later), AV voters may well be trying to change things in their favour, it's true.
Me, personally, I know that my MP is likely to still be a Tory even with AV...but I also know my vote will have meant more, and been involved more. Others will be doing it for altruistic reasons. Everyone's reasons are different, though to claim here that those voting against AV are doing so purely out of some kind of objective holiness is, of course, laughable.
"We need also to think about the potential results that we could have. We could end up (indeed we will end up) in a situation where a candidate who has the most votes is beaten by candidate who has mopped up second & third choices etc. How is it fair that the candidate who is wanted by the most constituents does not win the seat to someone who is no.2?"
What a conflation of terms here. "Candidate who has the most votes", though clearly not a majority of the public's support. "candidate who has mopped up second & third choices etc", someone who has then gone on to achieve a greater amount of votes when just they and the previously mentioned candidate are compared directly to one another. "candidate who is wanted by the most constituents" actually refers to being wanted by the largest minority grouping, not "the most".
So how is it fair(er than FPTP)? Simple. Assume that there are three candidates. People vote, the top two candidates (X and Y) are the most popular two. The least popular one (Z) is eliminated. Rather than those voters being in a situation where they might as well not have turned up, they are told very clearly this:
The two candidates remaining are the winners of the last round, your candidate was the loser...given your candidate cannot be allowed to win the seat, how would you vote out of these two remaining? Their opinion on who is better out of the two people that remain is used, their vote still means something to the election. The result is more representative, as a result, of real local opinion.
Lets say people generally moved their vote from candidate Z to Y, resulting in Y winning under AV rather than X under FPTP, in this example.
The question to ask yourself is this...if it were a FPTP election instead of AV, the third placed candidate (Z) hadn't run, and those that would have voted for candidate Z just voted for their otherwise second preference (Y) as if they were their firs instead...would you be saying it is unfair that the candidate Y won? If Z was there X would have won, but he's not, so people voted for Y instead and made Y the winner. Is this an unfair and unacceptable FPTP result?
"This is the real reason the Lib Dems want AV, it is not for fairer votes or to be more democratic, it is because they know they will benefit the most from 2nd options at a national level."
Except they don't know this any more, though they may have thought tactically it's something that they can rely on. The reality is that if we look at the polls now (Lib Dems languishing around 10%), and at the change in boundaries (which is likely to benefit the bigger parties more than the Lib Dems due to the Lib Dems geographical dispersion), I believe that Lib Dems would actually be all but wiped out at the next election. This assumes a great many things...but then so does assuming that the Lib Dems are going to benefit the most.
Of course, the funny thing is "benefiting the most" is still only meaning gaining a more proportional level of seats than under FPTP, though not actually representatively so. Is a Lib Dem "benefit" at the expense of the other parties "unfair" if they are still not achieving a proportional amount of seats to their national vote share? Which is it you're arguing for here Matt, fairness for all, or unfairness for partisan ends?
"A Tory is unlikely to put Labour as their 2nd option, they are likely to put a Lib Dem, a Labourite is unlikely to put a Tory as their 2nd option, they are likely to put a Lib Dem (bit less now I assume). The Lib Dems will campaign hard for AV because they believe it is they who will benefit most by mopping up 2nd options and this must be prevented."
Why must it be prevented? What exactly is your problem with a population who's majority want either a Labour or Lib Dem (left type) MP and not a Tory, actually getting their wish? What, in your mind, is democratic about a Tory winning a seat where the majority of the population want a left-leaning MP? And vice versa?
"If it were about democracy, do we believe they’d be going for AV in the lower chamber? Like it or not, the lower chamber IS democratic. If the Lib Dems cared so much about democracy, if they cared about reform would they not have held out when they were in a massively strong position during the coalition negotiations to have forced through real reform?"
Who knows. What relevance does it have to whether or not AV is better than FPTP as a voting system, for the public, is what I say?
"Why tinker with the lower democratically elected chamber whilst we still have the House of Lords?"
And then why tinker with the House of Lords while we still have Global Warming? And then why bother with Global Warming while we still have wars and terrorism? Thankfully we humans are intelligent creatures and we can deal with multiple things at the same time!
"Much as Yessers will tell you that anyone against AV is a dinosaur, I want real reform to our parliament."
Good for you!
"I want a fully elected upper house"
Me too, and we're getting it (or at least significant stepping stones to it)! Who's getting it for us? Ah yes, those Lib Dems you hate so much, thanks also to a much more progressive Tory leader than we would usually have.
"I’d also like to see the monarchy replaced, or at least having all political power (even ceremonial) stripped away (the latter is unlikely I know)"
Sure, good...and?
"We live in a society where many of those who make our laws are unelected"
Those who make our laws are, ultimately, those in the House of Commons. Very few bills are started in the Lords, and even then they have to be passed and scrutinised by the elected layer of the House of Commons. At every stage of our law making system, there is the "safety catch" of our elected officials being the ones that can amend, vote down, and ascend our laws. In short, every law made is done so, ultimately, through an elected body, the House of Commons.
"but we want to mess around with the elected lower house?"
And the upper house too, they can be done concurrently...multi-tasking, we love it!
"Someone’s taking the piss."
And others have trouble rubbing their belly while patting their head, metaphorically speaking.
"This is a fop to reform, designed basically to somehow draw a line under the expenses scandal, designed to essentially keep everything the same in Westminster"
Except that MPs will have a greater mandate from their local area. AV is, after all, an improvement for constituencies first, and by proxy...subtly...westminster after. The outcomes of this reform are to do much more for local voices than to maintain a status quo.
"keep the Lords sitting, keep the whole thing ticking along much as it was before, when in the electorate there is a real hunger for change."
Except when the Lords becomes an elected chamber, as the coalition agreement states. You do understand that reform is happening, right? I hope that your whole stance isn't based on your annoyance at the House of Lords situation, given you don't seem to have yet accepted reality on what is happening with it.
"I’d go so far as to say that not only is AV no fairer, it’s actually an insult to the electorate to offer up such a miserly reform, to waste tax-payer’s money like this. AV is a clever distraction from the real problems of Westminster politics. A no vote is the only possible answer to such an insult."
Yes! You've "wasted our money" so let's TRULY waste it by doing NOTHING and changing NOTHING! Ha! Have at that you nasty politicians, TAKE THAT!
Excuse me if I prefer the option of not *actually* wasting this money and taking the opportunity to instigate the changes that are indeed fairer and more democratic and representative on a local level, rather than just pissing it up against the wall out of spite.
'‘But if you vote no there’ll not be any future reform’ the yessers will tell you.'
Well that's an opinion of ours, strongly held because of two things. 1) The No camp is largely lead by people and organisations that see no benefit in losing FPTP, the main body that is associated with "no" by the media are the Tories who in their own manifestos state that First Past the Post is the right system for Westminster. And 2) Any opportunity that "no" supporting MP has had to offer up a true reform of the House of Commons, by supporting an amendment to put PR on the list of options in a referendum, almost all of them have voted against it.
'Real reform is already dead, for a parliament at least. Real reform died when it was allowed off the negotiating table when the coalition was being formed, it was so easily put to one side one has to wonder if it was ever a real objective for those negotiating.'
For a whole parliament you say!? Not a long time then. I think you should be more realistic and say "a generation". Although, House of Lords reform is happening this parliament. Is that not real reform?
"Does anyone believe after what looks set to be a spiteful campaign about something that the electorate simply don’t care about"
I always love this crystal ball gazing. What constitutes "don't care about"? I wish there was a definition for this political phrase, which people utter when they want to play down other people's passions without actually having taken some kind of evidence to back up their claim that "no-one cares".
"that the same electorate will have any stomach for another referendum? When the press go to town on what a huge waste of money the referendum has been will there be any politician who will stand up and say ‘encore’?"
Again, are the media going to talk about "waste of money" more or less when we make zero change because of a successful no vote?
"No, reform, for this parliament, has been killed stone dead,"
Gosh. You're like a political Emo.
"it’s in the ashes of the purple ‘revolution’ of the election and it makes me angry that we’ll have yet another few years of unelected cronies being given jobs for the boys and having a say on our lives."
Yada yada yada, remember Lords reform is underway, etc, etc.
"(Obviously, the real reform many yessers want is full PR,"
Obviously, you've done an empirical study and everything to back this supposition up. Oh? Oh sorry... Well let's just assume you're right and most "yessers" want PR in some form.
"the fact that FPTP has worked relatively well for hundreds of years"
We've only had FPTP as we have it now for 60ish years.
"is democratic"
Everyone stating a party name and the party that gets the most votes (in the FPTP sense) running the country regardless is also democratic. Democracy isn't, unfortunately, a word that immediately denotes quality of representation.
"and has never returned some God-awful extremist government"
Define extremist, and then explain how on earth AV will deliver said government.
"and by and large keeps extremist candidates out of parliament"
Even though FPTP can elect an extremist on as little as 1% of the vote, in impractical theory, and in more practical terms could return an extremist on as little as 25-30%. Would you describe Greens as extreme? They're certainly niche, and Lucas won on only 31% of the vote. This isn't to say she wouldn't have won under AV as well, but...like all niche parties and extremists, AV means people have much more of an opportunity to state their preference against those extremists/niche parties getting a seat if they so wish.
FPTP keeping extremists out of parliament isn't an argument against AV when AV does it BETTER!
"is to be ignored."
Quite rightly, given the lack of fact and reason in the description you've given for why it shouldn't be ignored.
"No, yessers want full PR"
Show us that study again please, as I assure you I don't know of any single person I've spoke to who wants "full PR" and all the issues that can bring, as simple as it is to count and define in to a result. I'd love to know how you can demographically categorise us all as wanting full PR.
"because many yessers are Lib Dems and Lib Dems like PR"
So you're NOT talking about full PR then, but rather STV, which is what the Lib Dems really want?
" because it would give them the constant balance of power."
Let me rephrase that as well, because I want to see if you understand how stupid it sounds, what you just said...
Many yessers are Lib Dems, and Lib Dems like STV because it would give them the actual number of seats in the House of Commons that relates to their share of the votes nationally, instead of under-representing them or over-representing other parties.
You've harped on for however long now about "democracy" and real "fairness" and the injustice of people making our laws without mandate and THEN you stand here and say that achieving a share of the seats that makes you as representative of that section of the public as can be is a problem because it's the Lib Dems who will sit in the middle ground? Give us a break and just say the real reason you're against this referendum...you hate the Lib Dems and anything they like!
"PR isn’t being discussed but I raise it because it’s part of the debate."
It's not though, the debate is AV or FPTP, PR won't come without another referendum after this, either way the debate now is not about PR, even if the debate *then* may be.
"One day I’ll write a fuller blog on it, one day, maybe…)"
Hopefully it'll be less full of shit.
"Let’s not forget that AV,"
Back on subject finally"
"this vast step forward in democracy has been bundled in with a direct and unhidden attack on democracy."
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN.
"The bill for the referendum has been bundled up with a guillotine of 50-odd MPs from parliament, the reason is vague, ‘we need to level out boundaries’ (why? Different constituencies are very different, even the geography can impact on the MP’s role) ‘we need to save money’ is the other one you’ll hear, whilst exactly 50 new unelected Lords were sworn into the other chamber"
50 Lords cost considerably less than 50 MPs, unfortunately. If you saw an extra 150 Lords come in to being you would have a perfect point. The thing is the extra 50 Lords increases the representativeness of the house, so in a way it's a good spend (rather than not spending the money and remaining unrepresentative of public opinion).
But I do get your point here (breaking the duck!)
"(this is actually amazing in its breath-taking arrogance)"
Or, despite such "arrogance" is there to make sure the Lords remains representative in comparison to the Commons. I assume you'd rather the Lords was still majority Labour while the public voted for mostly Conservative + Lib Dem, thus remaining unrepresentative completely, rather than someone other than the public doing the task of rebalancing that representation.
Again, I question whether you truly care about representativeness of our house or not, otherwise out of all the things you could level at the Lords you wouldn't pitch an attack at pretty much the ONLY thing done in the last 5 years to ensure it is in tune with public opinion on party levels of power.
"I may be stupid but more representation feels more democratic to me."
As long as it's that half representation that FPTP provides, not actual full representation...because that's what the Lib Dems want and wanting what the Lib Dems want makes you feel dirty...right?
"It stinks doesn’t it?"
It does, but it has nothing to do with the Referendum aside from being in the same Bill. Different aspects of things falling under the same categories go in to Bills all the time, it never means they're related.
"What else stinks has been the nasty, spiteful Yes2AV campaign"
Rar.
"which has not only had to fire people for making islamophobic jokes in support of AV (I shit you not)"
It's true! One person that associated with and helped the Yes official campaign was indeed fired for being politically inept and making an offensive joke. This makes all of the yes campaign spiteful and nasty?
"but the campaign has so far been a consistent barrage of abuse"
Fuck off.
"making out that anyone who is against AV is against democracy, against fairness, against reform, is stuck in the past"
You need to get in the now.
"is a dinosaur"
Why are you out of the museum?
"even linking no2av with such shits as Nick Griffin (again, I’m not joking)"
Well that'll be because the BNP actually have come out as No2AV.
"The vote isn’t until May and the yessers have got to this phase already."
It's hard to phrase this properly, but in all serious I couldn't care less. I'm seeing some of the No people insulted, and they are liars, they are deceitful, and they are trying to dupe people in to thinking something that isn't reality. When faced with the constant claims of "Lib Dem king makers" to "Multiple votes for some not all" and so on, repeatedly, despite being shown to be strictly wrong...people lose their patience and get sweary.
Yes (and myself) need to try and reel it back, of course...it is probably a No tactic to try and get us in that state to portray us in the light you're doing so now...solely as insulting political fixers rather than the people shedding light on the truths and reality of the situation such as we do. But at the same time, if you want to keep on saying something patently false then you're a conniving arsehole that would hopefully be exposed as such.
"The effect of this negative campaigning has been very real, it has changed me from being a simple no to AV with a big ‘meh’ to the whole thing, to a firm campaigner for the no camp."
At least we know you're more swayed by naughty words than truly negative but subtle undermining, character assassination and deception that the other side carry out. We all know it's better to be told something untrue than to hear something we might not like, after all.
"One of my other major problems with AV is that for many Westminster is already too consensual, many don’t feel they have any real options. AV will help make Westminster even more one-dimensional. It will mean that candidates will spend too much time playing to second option voters more than their core vote, whose votes they will feel they can count on."
Currently MPs don't have to "play" to any second option voters except swing voters, as well as their core vote. If MPs don't keep their core vote happy under AV they will lose them...potentially more easily given that the core vote can much more easily protest vote while still giving their party the second preference to ensure their more loathed party doesn't get in.
I'm not saying here that you're wrong entirely, that some MPs won't forget their core vote (foolishly in my opinion), but the logic says this... in FPTP core voters remain core because they fear that voting for someone else may let a much worse MP represent them, someone that may help to ruin their lives (or, of course, that they love their MP and would never think of leaving them...the MP never knows this fully).
In AV core voters have more freedom to be more vocal about their party. "I want to vote Labour, but this MP just doesn't get it..." so votes for an independent with Labour as second choice. No fear of a Tory getting in, but also gives the Labour MP a bloody nose to say "buck your ideas up".
This is what happened in London with Livingston, if the Mayoral election when he went independent was under FPTP, would he have won? More importantly would Labour have still won? Livingstone was a protest vote against Labour's handling of selection of candidates, who knows if under a different system he may have lost despite being wanted, or perhaps even let the Tories win through vote splitting?
So this premise that the core vote will be ignored doesn't ring true with me. And then, of course, you understand that the second and third choices are important under AV, and more so than FPTP. It seems to me it's clear that there is an incentive to cover both Core and non-core but friendly votes under AV, but only swing voters under FPTP (depending on majority size).
"It’ll be the bland leading the bland (well, only leading once you’ve factored in 2nd and 3rd votes)."
Or the representative leading the represented, but then your comfort zone on when that is acceptable is still something I can't get my head around.
"This is the exact opposite of what we want right now."
Yeah! We want reform! With more representation! But not *actual* representation! More like hyper-representation of a minority set of views in order to secure 30-40% of the vote! That's REAL representation!
"The major parties have to be able to display their differences or we are at real risk of seeing swathes of voters move to the fringes."
Is there any proof you can offer that parties will "homogenise", as you go on to claim? Surely PR, where EVERY vote matters is the perfect time to be "bland" and get the votes in...would you say countries like Italy and Germany lack the diversity of political outlook that would constitute "blandness" to pull in all those votes?
"AV could well lead to those extremists doing well in the longer term as mainstream candidates become more homogenised, more like eachother, more bland to avoid dropping 2nd votes. I think that’s pretty bad for democracy myself, and it’s another reason I’ll be voting no."
I'm not sure if you're really thinking this through, it's some pretty fantastic kind of supposition you've got going, but logical it is not.
First you're complaining parties will homogenise to APPEAL to voters, in essence doing what voters want to get the votes.
You then claim voters will hate this so much, having so many choices of parties all doing what they actually want the parties to do (and thus be representative to them) that they'll instead vote for an extremist party that (I have to assume, as they're not part of the homogenised mass) DOESN'T offer what they want.
Does that make any sense, really?
"The final consideration is more of a happy accident really, voting no will give Clegg a bloody nose"
As if it wasn't obvious enough already that most of your anti-AV stance comes from a deep and disturbing loathing of the Lib Dems...
"it will take us closer to a world we once again have a socially liberal Lib Dem party and much as it’s no reason to vote against AV, it’s an enjoyable extra benefit."
Or not, who knows. It may well just take them further in the direction of the Tories, and reduce (as you fear) the number of options on the table outside of the extremists. Either way, what happens to the Lib Dems isn't the concern of people who actually give a shit about reform, as reform is about the voters and how their opinions are accounted for.
"Let’s not get too hysterical because the electorate frankly don’t care"
Again, let's wait until the referendum to see just how much they "don't care" and then haggle over that definition. I mean...a turn out of 70% is "very much caring" in elections, so not caring must be a turn out of less than 35%, right? Let's wait and see.
"but join me in May in voting No 2 AV. Join me in giving those who would insult the electorate with this fop, this sorry little compromise, a slow clap for throwing away the chance for real reform. But mostly join me in holding the whole thing in the disdain it deserves."
But without any actual basis in reality and fact, and built on a foundation of misunderstanding and lies. How proud it must be, to be No 2 AV.
Ultimately I don't care what Matt does, I assume that in reality he was already leaning to "No" for some of the reasons he says below (like his irrational linking of Lib Dems to this referendum) and his personal bias allowed him to move easily from the "not caring" camp. But still, there are propogations of lies here, misunderstandings that need correcting, and subjective opinions and unknowable supposition as fact...and they need responding to.
"This May the British electorate face a choice as to whether they want to keep FPTP or adopt the AV system of elections for members of the lower chamber. Overall this as exciting a decision as helping Ken Barlow choose a tie, but the campaign has become a bit heated lately and wherever I sense an argument I’m straight in, as regular readers will well know (all one of you – hello mum)."
Hopefully this kind of article has increased his readership, but it's always nice when No campaigners place their personal opinion of how exciting something is as being a universal truth. Some people recognise the real benefits AV can bring, and are definitely excited about it being a possibility, myself one of them. It's only natural we all care about this subject in different amounts.
"The whole premise of the debate is being framed by ‘Yessers’, they will to you that AV represents a ‘fairer’ vote. They will tell you that AV is fairer, it is more democratic and as we get closer to the vote in May, that you’ll be more attractive to the opposite sex (probably)."
Remember this now, this is a a guy that is going to slam "hyperbole" later on in his comments, yet his style is dripping with it.
"In 2011, after a year of abuse the word ‘fair’ has about as much meaning as the word ‘progressive’ and an apology from Richard Keys. ‘Fairness’ as a concept is bloodied, bruised and begging to be left left alone, but still Yessers can sometimes talk like they have a monopoly on fairness."
Because fairness, despite any misuse of the term, still means something. Fair, ultimately, means best...but not just best in one context, best with all in consideration. A dictator having an easy life is best for him, but at the expense of a national infrastructure for healthcare, it's clearly not "fair". AV campaigners use the word fair because they recognise that AV isn't the best system, but it is a fairer one...a system that on balance gives more benefits in each of it's contexts than FPTP does.
"However, let’s look at it this way, if you give everyone of voting age one vote each, with the candidate that gets the most votes winning, that sounds like a pretty fair type of democracy to me."
This is the trouble, the "bloodied and bruised" word fair has already infiltrated your brain...you no longer understands what it means. Fair doesn't mean "equal". Everyone having the same vote (though we, on the AV side, dispute that every vote is actually equal under FPTP) may be described as "equal" in principle, but it is not necessarily fair.
If everyone in this country who was working had to pay exactly £10000 in taxes, by the same definition that Matt uses, it would be "fair", regardless of what they earned and what they could afford. This is why progressive (yes, dictionary definition here again) taxation is "fair", while not being "equal".
"Some people live in areas that have large populations of voters for a single party, but that is democracy."
It's pot luck.
"It does not mean a vote has less value"
It does, though I guess it depends on how you define "value". If you are looking at it as if everyone should get a gold star for having voting, then yes they are all counted the same and everyone who took part had an equal opportunity to have a say.
But if value is measured, as those supporting AV look at it, as how much you voting actually allows you to affect the result, then it's clear that anyone voting for someone other than the top 2 candidates might as well not have bothered turning up.
Say Tories win 40% vs Labour at 35% vs everyone else at 25%. If those 40% of Tories don't turn up they have lost their party an MP, if only 6% of them don't turn up, in fact...it's a big deal that can change their party's fortunes. Labour on the other hand...they can have almost 10% not turn up and it won't make any difference...even if up to 5% extra turn out it doesn't change anything, though I would argue that all have still taken part and by turning up have avoided being one of that 10% that could lose them their second placing.
And of course, those 25% could not turn up at all and it wouldn't change the result, nor really any future result. Turn up, don't turn up...what's it matter, your vote doesn't do shit under FPTP in that situation.
So don't pretend that under FPTP all votes have the same value to the result, it's an absolute and objectively measurable fallacy.
"it just means that in democratic terms that constituency/region should return a candidate for that party. In fact, if we want fairness shouldn’t we be giving candidates with bigger majorities a larger vote in parliament? (No, of course we shouldn’t)"
No, but not for the reasons you're angling towards, but more because along with votes not being equal, they're not given equally either. Just because an MP is voted in with 60% of the vote doesn't mean the electorate there care more for him than an MP elected in with 40% of the vote. We don't measure level of feeling on an individual level, and nothing about the AV or FPTP debate changes that (nor should it).
"It’s simply not the case that AV is fairer"
It is... I should say at this stage I'm fisking this as I go, so I'm hoping I'll have the opportunity to see some examples of why it is claimed that AV is less fair (or just as fair) as FPTP that I can counter...
"as there is no set definition of fairness."
Dictionaries would like to have a word with you about that slur against their name. For clarity...from Oxford...
"1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:
- the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members
- a fairer distribution of wealth"
AV achieves greater representation across the board, without favouring a minority because they're the largest grouping, than FPTP. Dictionary definition. AV is fairer than FPTP.
"What AV is, is an attempt by those who don’t like the results they get to change the system in their favour. If voters are too bunched up do something about boundaries (more on that later), do not chuck away a perfectly democratic system."
Ignoring boundaries (until later), AV voters may well be trying to change things in their favour, it's true.
Me, personally, I know that my MP is likely to still be a Tory even with AV...but I also know my vote will have meant more, and been involved more. Others will be doing it for altruistic reasons. Everyone's reasons are different, though to claim here that those voting against AV are doing so purely out of some kind of objective holiness is, of course, laughable.
"We need also to think about the potential results that we could have. We could end up (indeed we will end up) in a situation where a candidate who has the most votes is beaten by candidate who has mopped up second & third choices etc. How is it fair that the candidate who is wanted by the most constituents does not win the seat to someone who is no.2?"
What a conflation of terms here. "Candidate who has the most votes", though clearly not a majority of the public's support. "candidate who has mopped up second & third choices etc", someone who has then gone on to achieve a greater amount of votes when just they and the previously mentioned candidate are compared directly to one another. "candidate who is wanted by the most constituents" actually refers to being wanted by the largest minority grouping, not "the most".
So how is it fair(er than FPTP)? Simple. Assume that there are three candidates. People vote, the top two candidates (X and Y) are the most popular two. The least popular one (Z) is eliminated. Rather than those voters being in a situation where they might as well not have turned up, they are told very clearly this:
The two candidates remaining are the winners of the last round, your candidate was the loser...given your candidate cannot be allowed to win the seat, how would you vote out of these two remaining? Their opinion on who is better out of the two people that remain is used, their vote still means something to the election. The result is more representative, as a result, of real local opinion.
Lets say people generally moved their vote from candidate Z to Y, resulting in Y winning under AV rather than X under FPTP, in this example.
The question to ask yourself is this...if it were a FPTP election instead of AV, the third placed candidate (Z) hadn't run, and those that would have voted for candidate Z just voted for their otherwise second preference (Y) as if they were their firs instead...would you be saying it is unfair that the candidate Y won? If Z was there X would have won, but he's not, so people voted for Y instead and made Y the winner. Is this an unfair and unacceptable FPTP result?
"This is the real reason the Lib Dems want AV, it is not for fairer votes or to be more democratic, it is because they know they will benefit the most from 2nd options at a national level."
Except they don't know this any more, though they may have thought tactically it's something that they can rely on. The reality is that if we look at the polls now (Lib Dems languishing around 10%), and at the change in boundaries (which is likely to benefit the bigger parties more than the Lib Dems due to the Lib Dems geographical dispersion), I believe that Lib Dems would actually be all but wiped out at the next election. This assumes a great many things...but then so does assuming that the Lib Dems are going to benefit the most.
Of course, the funny thing is "benefiting the most" is still only meaning gaining a more proportional level of seats than under FPTP, though not actually representatively so. Is a Lib Dem "benefit" at the expense of the other parties "unfair" if they are still not achieving a proportional amount of seats to their national vote share? Which is it you're arguing for here Matt, fairness for all, or unfairness for partisan ends?
"A Tory is unlikely to put Labour as their 2nd option, they are likely to put a Lib Dem, a Labourite is unlikely to put a Tory as their 2nd option, they are likely to put a Lib Dem (bit less now I assume). The Lib Dems will campaign hard for AV because they believe it is they who will benefit most by mopping up 2nd options and this must be prevented."
Why must it be prevented? What exactly is your problem with a population who's majority want either a Labour or Lib Dem (left type) MP and not a Tory, actually getting their wish? What, in your mind, is democratic about a Tory winning a seat where the majority of the population want a left-leaning MP? And vice versa?
"If it were about democracy, do we believe they’d be going for AV in the lower chamber? Like it or not, the lower chamber IS democratic. If the Lib Dems cared so much about democracy, if they cared about reform would they not have held out when they were in a massively strong position during the coalition negotiations to have forced through real reform?"
Who knows. What relevance does it have to whether or not AV is better than FPTP as a voting system, for the public, is what I say?
"Why tinker with the lower democratically elected chamber whilst we still have the House of Lords?"
And then why tinker with the House of Lords while we still have Global Warming? And then why bother with Global Warming while we still have wars and terrorism? Thankfully we humans are intelligent creatures and we can deal with multiple things at the same time!
"Much as Yessers will tell you that anyone against AV is a dinosaur, I want real reform to our parliament."
Good for you!
"I want a fully elected upper house"
Me too, and we're getting it (or at least significant stepping stones to it)! Who's getting it for us? Ah yes, those Lib Dems you hate so much, thanks also to a much more progressive Tory leader than we would usually have.
"I’d also like to see the monarchy replaced, or at least having all political power (even ceremonial) stripped away (the latter is unlikely I know)"
Sure, good...and?
"We live in a society where many of those who make our laws are unelected"
Those who make our laws are, ultimately, those in the House of Commons. Very few bills are started in the Lords, and even then they have to be passed and scrutinised by the elected layer of the House of Commons. At every stage of our law making system, there is the "safety catch" of our elected officials being the ones that can amend, vote down, and ascend our laws. In short, every law made is done so, ultimately, through an elected body, the House of Commons.
"but we want to mess around with the elected lower house?"
And the upper house too, they can be done concurrently...multi-tasking, we love it!
"Someone’s taking the piss."
And others have trouble rubbing their belly while patting their head, metaphorically speaking.
"This is a fop to reform, designed basically to somehow draw a line under the expenses scandal, designed to essentially keep everything the same in Westminster"
Except that MPs will have a greater mandate from their local area. AV is, after all, an improvement for constituencies first, and by proxy...subtly...westminster after. The outcomes of this reform are to do much more for local voices than to maintain a status quo.
"keep the Lords sitting, keep the whole thing ticking along much as it was before, when in the electorate there is a real hunger for change."
Except when the Lords becomes an elected chamber, as the coalition agreement states. You do understand that reform is happening, right? I hope that your whole stance isn't based on your annoyance at the House of Lords situation, given you don't seem to have yet accepted reality on what is happening with it.
"I’d go so far as to say that not only is AV no fairer, it’s actually an insult to the electorate to offer up such a miserly reform, to waste tax-payer’s money like this. AV is a clever distraction from the real problems of Westminster politics. A no vote is the only possible answer to such an insult."
Yes! You've "wasted our money" so let's TRULY waste it by doing NOTHING and changing NOTHING! Ha! Have at that you nasty politicians, TAKE THAT!
Excuse me if I prefer the option of not *actually* wasting this money and taking the opportunity to instigate the changes that are indeed fairer and more democratic and representative on a local level, rather than just pissing it up against the wall out of spite.
'‘But if you vote no there’ll not be any future reform’ the yessers will tell you.'
Well that's an opinion of ours, strongly held because of two things. 1) The No camp is largely lead by people and organisations that see no benefit in losing FPTP, the main body that is associated with "no" by the media are the Tories who in their own manifestos state that First Past the Post is the right system for Westminster. And 2) Any opportunity that "no" supporting MP has had to offer up a true reform of the House of Commons, by supporting an amendment to put PR on the list of options in a referendum, almost all of them have voted against it.
'Real reform is already dead, for a parliament at least. Real reform died when it was allowed off the negotiating table when the coalition was being formed, it was so easily put to one side one has to wonder if it was ever a real objective for those negotiating.'
For a whole parliament you say!? Not a long time then. I think you should be more realistic and say "a generation". Although, House of Lords reform is happening this parliament. Is that not real reform?
"Does anyone believe after what looks set to be a spiteful campaign about something that the electorate simply don’t care about"
I always love this crystal ball gazing. What constitutes "don't care about"? I wish there was a definition for this political phrase, which people utter when they want to play down other people's passions without actually having taken some kind of evidence to back up their claim that "no-one cares".
"that the same electorate will have any stomach for another referendum? When the press go to town on what a huge waste of money the referendum has been will there be any politician who will stand up and say ‘encore’?"
Again, are the media going to talk about "waste of money" more or less when we make zero change because of a successful no vote?
"No, reform, for this parliament, has been killed stone dead,"
Gosh. You're like a political Emo.
"it’s in the ashes of the purple ‘revolution’ of the election and it makes me angry that we’ll have yet another few years of unelected cronies being given jobs for the boys and having a say on our lives."
Yada yada yada, remember Lords reform is underway, etc, etc.
"(Obviously, the real reform many yessers want is full PR,"
Obviously, you've done an empirical study and everything to back this supposition up. Oh? Oh sorry... Well let's just assume you're right and most "yessers" want PR in some form.
"the fact that FPTP has worked relatively well for hundreds of years"
We've only had FPTP as we have it now for 60ish years.
"is democratic"
Everyone stating a party name and the party that gets the most votes (in the FPTP sense) running the country regardless is also democratic. Democracy isn't, unfortunately, a word that immediately denotes quality of representation.
"and has never returned some God-awful extremist government"
Define extremist, and then explain how on earth AV will deliver said government.
"and by and large keeps extremist candidates out of parliament"
Even though FPTP can elect an extremist on as little as 1% of the vote, in impractical theory, and in more practical terms could return an extremist on as little as 25-30%. Would you describe Greens as extreme? They're certainly niche, and Lucas won on only 31% of the vote. This isn't to say she wouldn't have won under AV as well, but...like all niche parties and extremists, AV means people have much more of an opportunity to state their preference against those extremists/niche parties getting a seat if they so wish.
FPTP keeping extremists out of parliament isn't an argument against AV when AV does it BETTER!
"is to be ignored."
Quite rightly, given the lack of fact and reason in the description you've given for why it shouldn't be ignored.
"No, yessers want full PR"
Show us that study again please, as I assure you I don't know of any single person I've spoke to who wants "full PR" and all the issues that can bring, as simple as it is to count and define in to a result. I'd love to know how you can demographically categorise us all as wanting full PR.
"because many yessers are Lib Dems and Lib Dems like PR"
So you're NOT talking about full PR then, but rather STV, which is what the Lib Dems really want?
" because it would give them the constant balance of power."
Let me rephrase that as well, because I want to see if you understand how stupid it sounds, what you just said...
Many yessers are Lib Dems, and Lib Dems like STV because it would give them the actual number of seats in the House of Commons that relates to their share of the votes nationally, instead of under-representing them or over-representing other parties.
You've harped on for however long now about "democracy" and real "fairness" and the injustice of people making our laws without mandate and THEN you stand here and say that achieving a share of the seats that makes you as representative of that section of the public as can be is a problem because it's the Lib Dems who will sit in the middle ground? Give us a break and just say the real reason you're against this referendum...you hate the Lib Dems and anything they like!
"PR isn’t being discussed but I raise it because it’s part of the debate."
It's not though, the debate is AV or FPTP, PR won't come without another referendum after this, either way the debate now is not about PR, even if the debate *then* may be.
"One day I’ll write a fuller blog on it, one day, maybe…)"
Hopefully it'll be less full of shit.
"Let’s not forget that AV,"
Back on subject finally"
"this vast step forward in democracy has been bundled in with a direct and unhidden attack on democracy."
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN.
"The bill for the referendum has been bundled up with a guillotine of 50-odd MPs from parliament, the reason is vague, ‘we need to level out boundaries’ (why? Different constituencies are very different, even the geography can impact on the MP’s role) ‘we need to save money’ is the other one you’ll hear, whilst exactly 50 new unelected Lords were sworn into the other chamber"
50 Lords cost considerably less than 50 MPs, unfortunately. If you saw an extra 150 Lords come in to being you would have a perfect point. The thing is the extra 50 Lords increases the representativeness of the house, so in a way it's a good spend (rather than not spending the money and remaining unrepresentative of public opinion).
But I do get your point here (breaking the duck!)
"(this is actually amazing in its breath-taking arrogance)"
Or, despite such "arrogance" is there to make sure the Lords remains representative in comparison to the Commons. I assume you'd rather the Lords was still majority Labour while the public voted for mostly Conservative + Lib Dem, thus remaining unrepresentative completely, rather than someone other than the public doing the task of rebalancing that representation.
Again, I question whether you truly care about representativeness of our house or not, otherwise out of all the things you could level at the Lords you wouldn't pitch an attack at pretty much the ONLY thing done in the last 5 years to ensure it is in tune with public opinion on party levels of power.
"I may be stupid but more representation feels more democratic to me."
As long as it's that half representation that FPTP provides, not actual full representation...because that's what the Lib Dems want and wanting what the Lib Dems want makes you feel dirty...right?
"It stinks doesn’t it?"
It does, but it has nothing to do with the Referendum aside from being in the same Bill. Different aspects of things falling under the same categories go in to Bills all the time, it never means they're related.
"What else stinks has been the nasty, spiteful Yes2AV campaign"
Rar.
"which has not only had to fire people for making islamophobic jokes in support of AV (I shit you not)"
It's true! One person that associated with and helped the Yes official campaign was indeed fired for being politically inept and making an offensive joke. This makes all of the yes campaign spiteful and nasty?
"but the campaign has so far been a consistent barrage of abuse"
Fuck off.
"making out that anyone who is against AV is against democracy, against fairness, against reform, is stuck in the past"
You need to get in the now.
"is a dinosaur"
Why are you out of the museum?
"even linking no2av with such shits as Nick Griffin (again, I’m not joking)"
Well that'll be because the BNP actually have come out as No2AV.
"The vote isn’t until May and the yessers have got to this phase already."
It's hard to phrase this properly, but in all serious I couldn't care less. I'm seeing some of the No people insulted, and they are liars, they are deceitful, and they are trying to dupe people in to thinking something that isn't reality. When faced with the constant claims of "Lib Dem king makers" to "Multiple votes for some not all" and so on, repeatedly, despite being shown to be strictly wrong...people lose their patience and get sweary.
Yes (and myself) need to try and reel it back, of course...it is probably a No tactic to try and get us in that state to portray us in the light you're doing so now...solely as insulting political fixers rather than the people shedding light on the truths and reality of the situation such as we do. But at the same time, if you want to keep on saying something patently false then you're a conniving arsehole that would hopefully be exposed as such.
"The effect of this negative campaigning has been very real, it has changed me from being a simple no to AV with a big ‘meh’ to the whole thing, to a firm campaigner for the no camp."
At least we know you're more swayed by naughty words than truly negative but subtle undermining, character assassination and deception that the other side carry out. We all know it's better to be told something untrue than to hear something we might not like, after all.
"One of my other major problems with AV is that for many Westminster is already too consensual, many don’t feel they have any real options. AV will help make Westminster even more one-dimensional. It will mean that candidates will spend too much time playing to second option voters more than their core vote, whose votes they will feel they can count on."
Currently MPs don't have to "play" to any second option voters except swing voters, as well as their core vote. If MPs don't keep their core vote happy under AV they will lose them...potentially more easily given that the core vote can much more easily protest vote while still giving their party the second preference to ensure their more loathed party doesn't get in.
I'm not saying here that you're wrong entirely, that some MPs won't forget their core vote (foolishly in my opinion), but the logic says this... in FPTP core voters remain core because they fear that voting for someone else may let a much worse MP represent them, someone that may help to ruin their lives (or, of course, that they love their MP and would never think of leaving them...the MP never knows this fully).
In AV core voters have more freedom to be more vocal about their party. "I want to vote Labour, but this MP just doesn't get it..." so votes for an independent with Labour as second choice. No fear of a Tory getting in, but also gives the Labour MP a bloody nose to say "buck your ideas up".
This is what happened in London with Livingston, if the Mayoral election when he went independent was under FPTP, would he have won? More importantly would Labour have still won? Livingstone was a protest vote against Labour's handling of selection of candidates, who knows if under a different system he may have lost despite being wanted, or perhaps even let the Tories win through vote splitting?
So this premise that the core vote will be ignored doesn't ring true with me. And then, of course, you understand that the second and third choices are important under AV, and more so than FPTP. It seems to me it's clear that there is an incentive to cover both Core and non-core but friendly votes under AV, but only swing voters under FPTP (depending on majority size).
"It’ll be the bland leading the bland (well, only leading once you’ve factored in 2nd and 3rd votes)."
Or the representative leading the represented, but then your comfort zone on when that is acceptable is still something I can't get my head around.
"This is the exact opposite of what we want right now."
Yeah! We want reform! With more representation! But not *actual* representation! More like hyper-representation of a minority set of views in order to secure 30-40% of the vote! That's REAL representation!
"The major parties have to be able to display their differences or we are at real risk of seeing swathes of voters move to the fringes."
Is there any proof you can offer that parties will "homogenise", as you go on to claim? Surely PR, where EVERY vote matters is the perfect time to be "bland" and get the votes in...would you say countries like Italy and Germany lack the diversity of political outlook that would constitute "blandness" to pull in all those votes?
"AV could well lead to those extremists doing well in the longer term as mainstream candidates become more homogenised, more like eachother, more bland to avoid dropping 2nd votes. I think that’s pretty bad for democracy myself, and it’s another reason I’ll be voting no."
I'm not sure if you're really thinking this through, it's some pretty fantastic kind of supposition you've got going, but logical it is not.
First you're complaining parties will homogenise to APPEAL to voters, in essence doing what voters want to get the votes.
You then claim voters will hate this so much, having so many choices of parties all doing what they actually want the parties to do (and thus be representative to them) that they'll instead vote for an extremist party that (I have to assume, as they're not part of the homogenised mass) DOESN'T offer what they want.
Does that make any sense, really?
"The final consideration is more of a happy accident really, voting no will give Clegg a bloody nose"
As if it wasn't obvious enough already that most of your anti-AV stance comes from a deep and disturbing loathing of the Lib Dems...
"it will take us closer to a world we once again have a socially liberal Lib Dem party and much as it’s no reason to vote against AV, it’s an enjoyable extra benefit."
Or not, who knows. It may well just take them further in the direction of the Tories, and reduce (as you fear) the number of options on the table outside of the extremists. Either way, what happens to the Lib Dems isn't the concern of people who actually give a shit about reform, as reform is about the voters and how their opinions are accounted for.
"Let’s not get too hysterical because the electorate frankly don’t care"
Again, let's wait until the referendum to see just how much they "don't care" and then haggle over that definition. I mean...a turn out of 70% is "very much caring" in elections, so not caring must be a turn out of less than 35%, right? Let's wait and see.
"but join me in May in voting No 2 AV. Join me in giving those who would insult the electorate with this fop, this sorry little compromise, a slow clap for throwing away the chance for real reform. But mostly join me in holding the whole thing in the disdain it deserves."
But without any actual basis in reality and fact, and built on a foundation of misunderstanding and lies. How proud it must be, to be No 2 AV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)